The View From North Central Idaho

This is in the news today:

Florida police say a man arrested for repeatedly calling 911 looking for sex claimed it was the only number he could dial after running out of cell phone minutes.

Tampa police said 29-year-old Joshua Basso made sexual comments to the 911 dispatcher and asked if he could come to her house. Investigators say she hung up, but he called back four more times.

A couple months ago I met a 911 dispatcher and she told me a similar story. But apparently in her dispatch center if things are a little slow they have fun with it instead arresting the guy. One day all the other dispatchers had spent time listening to one caller and suppressing their laughter while she was busy with a real call. After he called back for the sixth (or some such repeat) time she was given the call. Having been distracted by a real emergency she missed the suppressed laughter and chatter of her co-workers and didn't pick up on the fact that she was being sent some entertainment when they directed the call to her. She heard the heavy breathing and grunts and for a couple minutes thought it was someone unable talk and needed some sort of assistance. She coached him as she had been trained and tried get some sort of meaning from the grunts. He apparently got sufficient assistance from just hearing her voice to get his needs satisfied. This greatly amused her co-workers who silently listened in.

You have to be really desperate to use 911 as your sexual outlet of choice.

Doug Pennington who is the Assistant Director of Communications at the Brady Campaign writes:

[I]sn’t it ironic how some libertarians want government to stay out of their lives, yet have no problem with forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn?  The grocery store; the park; the school; the airport.  Apparently, we have the “freedom” to live with what these so-called libertarians tell us to live with.  After all, they have the guns, right?

I heard sort of argument in the context of concealed carry of guns at least 15 years ago. It was some radio talk show host in San Francisco who asked why she didn't have the right to walk down the street without people having guns hidden. I suspect this sort of argument resonates with a lot of people.

The thing is people use the same sort of argument with free speech and religious freedom. They ask why do we have to tolerate neo-Nazi's parading down the street? Or why do we have to tolerate atheists, Muslims, or Jews in our neighborhoods and schools?

If that doesn't bring my point home try using the argument to support segregation.

Governments don't force freedom on their citizens. Governments can only infringe freedoms of their subjects.

Wednesday night Barb and I had dinner with Mike Brown of the Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance and his wife. His wife, a big Ayn Rand fan, encapsulated a point in a very compelling way. She said under a free, capitalist, system people are able to create their own little socialist or communist utopia societies and share according to need and take according to their abilities. Or they can give up all "evil" modern technology such as the Amish communities do. Free societies allow such communities to successfully co-exist just fine. If you can own property you can do pretty much whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else or their property. The government still demands taxes but you don't have to tolerate other religions, free speech, or people with guns on your property. The same isn't true under a communist or totalitarian government.

But despite the clear problems of "government forcing freedom" there have been entire books written on the topic. Last year daughter Kim reported her economics class had The Shock Doctrine as required reading. One of the thesis's of the book is that advocates (such as certain people within the U.S. government) of Milton Friedman are forcing (including using torture) free market economics on people. Kim was pissed and had trouble reading the book because of the anger it invoked. How does a government "force a free market"? A free market is one free of government interference! Force is required to have anything other than a free market.

And so it is with "forcing free speech", "forcing religious tolerance", and "forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn". Pennington is telling us the true beliefs of his organization and the utopia they would like to create--freedom is slavery.

Update: I apparently got their attention. The post now has this tagged on to the end:

UPDATE: For readers referred from Joe Huffman, guns are not speech.

No one said it was free speech. But both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are specific enumerated rights protected from infringement by the Bill of Rights. Hence the comparison is valid. For the Brady Campaign to claim a freedom from other people bearing arms is the constitutional equivalent of claiming the freedom from the speech of others. Of course it's not the physical equivalent. But it is the legal equivalent.

Digressing a little bit I will admit that we probably will not ever have a constitutionally guaranteed right to carry concealed guns in public everywhere. If the Brady Campaign were to explicitly state it is only the carrying of concealed guns they get all uptight about but open carry is okay then I would be much more muted in my criticism of them. The carry of firearms in some form is probably going to be eventually upheld by the courts. Either the politicians have to make concealed carry permits "shall issue" and relatively quick and painless to obtain or they will have probably have to allow open carry without a permit. If some sort of carry for self defense in public is not allowed then the "bear" part of keep and bear arms will be infringed. I'm pretty sure the Brady people see that writing on the wall and are just dragging their feet or in denial.

After thinking about it for a long time and reading nearly all the blog posts and podcasts about the big open carry debate in the last few weeks I'm going to have my say on the topic soon. Perhaps as soon as tomorrow. Brady and company just contributed to my post on the topic.

In the Chicago Gun Case (McDonald, et. al. v. City of Chicago) the Brady Campaign has announced they will be filing a brief in support of neither party.

I'm anxious to find out what that means. As much as I like to think of them as spoiled children asking the nanny (government) to make the bad boys to go away (people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms) I don't think they are going to say anything close to "the case is irrelevent because Heller was decided incorrectly".

It appears that whatever their position we will find out sometime on or after November 23^rd.

It's been gnawing at me for days now and the way I figure is, those of you who value your imagined safety so much you'll choose fascism or communism over freedom are the ones who need gnawed at, not me.

...

You can claim Libertarians are "batshit crazy," but it's still better than death-camp pragmatism.

Roberta X.
November 12, 2009
Americanism
[I haven't verified this but I think there was something in the comments to other posts at Roberta's place which inspired the rant.

Have you ever noticed that a lot of quotable material comes about when someone gets fired up about something? Either that or she has the flu again.--Joe]

We've had a very well-plotted-out legal strategy for years, leading up to this.

Alan Gottlieb
November 10, 2009
Barack & Load
Regarding the McDonald gun case out of Chicago that is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
[I recently talked with Alan and he is 100% convinced we are going to win this one.--Joe]

Let the people think they govern and they will be governed.

William Penn
[Some people think our government is by the people and for the people. Recent events should dissuade you from this belief.--Joe]

A guy at work, Chet, frequently stops by my office to take a break and talk about, among other things, the state of our economy. Are we going to have hyper inflation? Deflation? Should savings be put into stocks, bonds, precious metals?

I bought a few ounces of gold and silver in the late 1990s and that turns out to have been a fairly good investment. But as Chet points out, "You can't eat it."

If being able to eat it were the sole criteria for sound investing then a few tons of lentils, peas, and wheat from the farm be a good idea but my bunker can only store so many sacks before it starts getting in the way. And I'm pretty sure some of the sacks of food I sold to people worried about Y2K in 1999 (about 20,000 pounds total) are still in their closets unopened except perhaps by rodents and insects. The food stores fairly well but unless you were very careful how you stored after ten years it has noticeably degraded.

Dave Hardy points out there is an alternative to gold that is useful (I don't recommend eating it however) and which has retained it's value every bit as well as gold has for the last 136 years. When I bought my first gun the guy I bought it from pointed out that guns in good repair don't loose significant value over the years. Even that SKS you bought for $65 back in the early 1990s kept pace with inflation. Ammo too has been a good investment.

So perhaps that is Chet's answer. Instead of precious metals like gold and silver invest in steel, copper, brass and lead with a little bit of nitrocellulose thrown in.

I was reading this article:

Caroline Cartwright, 48, claims that she is unable to stop the loud shouting and screaming she makes during lovemaking with her husband Steve.

After neighbours, the local postman and a woman taking her child to school complained about the noise, the Cartwrights were hit with a noise abatement notice.

However, when Mrs Cartwright was convicted of breaching the notice, magistrates made her subject of an anti-social behaviour order as well.

She appealed against her conviction for breaching the noise abatement notice and the making of the Asbo, which bans the couple from "shouting, screaming or vocalisation at such a level as to be a statutory nuisance".

Jobless Mrs Cartwright used Article 8 of the Human Rights Act to argue she had a right to "respect for her private and family life". She also claimed that she could not help making the loud noise during sex with her husband.

The hearing at Newcastle Crown Court heard that the Cartwrights' nightly sex sessions at their home in Hall Road, Concord, Washington, Tyne and Wear, were making their neighbours lives' hell. Their lovemaking was described as "murder" and "unnatural" and drowned out their neighbours' televisions. Neighbours said the Cartwrights' sex sessions would usually start around midnight and last for two or three hours, every night of the week, the court heard.

Specialist equipment installed in a neighbour's flat by Sunderland City Council recorded noise levels of between 30 to 40 decibels, with the highest being 47 decibels.

Giving evidence, Mrs Cartwright said she was unable to control the noise she made during sex. "I did not understand why people asked me to be quiet because to me it is normal. I didn't understand where they were coming from," she said. "I have tried to minimise the situation by having sex in the morning - not at night - so the noise was not waking anybody. I may be sympathetic to it but it is not something I am doing on purpose."

Photo from the Telegraph

And I could not help but think that perhaps they are going about addressing the problem in the wrong way. What if they amplified the sound and put up posters of this article in the neighborhood? She can't help making all the noise because she is advertising her receptivity so why not take it to the natural (pun intended) conclusion?

Well, it amuses me anyway.

He was trying to place me in the middle of all these killings, so that when he finally took me out, the police would think I was just another sniper victim.

It might sound bizarre and far-fetched, but not if you knew John Muhammad. 

You have to remember that he was trained in psychological warfare in the army, and he was prepared to do anything to get what he wanted. 

That means all those innocent people were killed just because he was trying to kill me. I still have a hard time living with that. I constantly blank out of my mind the number of people who died in my name.

Mildred Muhammad
Wife of Washington sniper reveals the chilling reasons why her husband gunned down 13 strangers
[John Muhammad is scheduled to die by lethal injection today.--Joe]

What do you call a bunch of people, hated by our enemies, stuck in close quarters with no means of self defense?

Answer; "Fish in a barrel".

"Target Rich Environment" comes to mind also.  This in response to that perpetual blithering idiot, Paul Helmke.  I don't really even like talking about him, because in reality it's probably a complete waste of time.  That and he's getting, right here, far more attention than he deserves.  We should spend more time talking about good or interesting things, or ideas that can solve problems and he's none of the above.  Flies, ants, hornets, and mosquitoes, do tend to get one's attention though, even at the best of picnics.  If he can take credit for something, I suppose that's it-- being the annoying parasite at the gathering of minds.  Where's my fly swatter?

But that’s just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for decades—so much so that if there is going to be any restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, “No.“ And they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to “draw a line in the sand” for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009
Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act
[My opinion is here on the Firearms Freedom Act as a gun rights tool. But I have to admit it has potential to further freedom on a broader scale. Because the recognition of the individual RKBA is so new case law is not that well developed. Because of that it may be possible to leverage FFA into something greater than what it appears on the face to be. I think it's a long shot but imagine if three fourths of the states passed such laws. At that point a constitutional amendment is within striking distance. Either an interesting Amendment (I'd like to see legislators who voted for a law or the president who signed a law that was later declared unconstitutional to be automatically convicted of treason) or secession.--Joe]

Two weeks ago I shot in a Steel Challenge match with the Lewiston Pistol Club. Nice match, nice people.

I shot both my Gun Blog 45 and my STI Eagle. Twice the fun for the same investment of time. But there were problems.

I had recently got my STI back from being worked on. While it was gone I had been using my Gun Blog 45 and had practiced with it enough that I seldom hit the bugs with the stupid LDA trigger.

With the STI back I shot it for practice and then tried to shoot both guns in the steel match.

About 10 or 20% of the time I used the Gun Blog 45 I would try and take the thumb safety off at the same time I was prepping the trigger after the draw. This resulted in the trigger going all the way to the rear without anything happening. It would take another 0.5 seconds (yes, I got the first shot times back from the R.O., I had a bimodal distribution of first shot times: ~1.5 and ~2.0 seconds). Other times when I was prepping the trigger for the next shot I would over prep and fire a shot prior to when I really wanted it to shoot. The long LDA trigger pull is tough for me to shoot rapidly.

Fine. I'm done with this gun. I'll clean and oil it and put it away. It's a nice memento of the Gun Blogger Summer Camp but I don't like shooting it.

The STI shot well but one of the brand new magazines I purchased after shooting a hole in a magazine last May, which worked fine before I had the gun worked on, would drop out of the gun on the first shot. The first time I thought it was because I hadn't seated it correctly or something. The second time I put the magazine away for later study. After the match I discovered that both of the new magazines would do that. One after just racking the slide. Okay. I'll need to look at this closely and figure out what is going wrong.

That night I cleaned the Gun Blog 45 and carefully packed it away. Figuring I would only get it out for teaching and new shooters that wanted to try a .45. I was done with it.

I then cleaned the STI and discovered the link from the barrel to the frame had a crack in it. I have fired about 300 rounds after getting it back from the factory and it has to go back to the shop for another repair. And that means I'm carrying the Gun Blog 45 for self-defense until I get the STI back.

I put 30K rounds through my $300 (in 1994) Ruger P-89 with only one trip to the factory for repair and it only misbehaved when I used non-factory magazines, crappy Egyptian military surplus ammo, or it was extremely dirty. The $2000 STI has had numerous repairs with about the same number of rounds through it and the Gun Blog 45 has the paint wearing off and the LDA trigger is a piece of crap.

Sometimes I hate my guns.

Two weeks ago I delivered a bunch of concrete blocks, mortar, and grass seed to the Boomershoot site. I didn't stay long enough to do anything with it because I wanted to shoot in a steel match that same day. I made the quick trip out there because I was afraid it would snow up or rain so much that it wouldn't be accessible until spring and I wanted the materials out there so I could walk (or snowshoe) in if I needed to and do any last minute prep work.

Today I drove back out and planted the last of the grass. It wouldn't have been disaster if I hadn't gotten the grass planted but it will be better that I did get it done. I would have liked to have done some work finishing off the semi-permanent toilet but I ended up spending time talking to my parents and brothers and then driving the 345 miles back to the Seattle area.

I'll probably go back out there in a couple weeks. Due to a huge office move at work I will have the entire Thanksgiving week off (extra, free, vacation!) so assuming the ground isn't knee deep in mud or waist deep in snow I will spend some of that time working on the site. But I have 2010 essential stuff done for this fall.

As pro-gun advocates, we have an obligation to lay out our arguments in a calculating and logical manner. To do so isn’t easy. I fail to tolerate the simple minded nature of our anti-gun adversaries on a daily basis. Like most pro-gun advocates it is beyond my ability to comprehend that people still believe in the validity of gun-control after the mounds of evidence that has disproved it over the last thirty years. Even worse is trying to educate the establishment media on how much they don’t understand about guns. Anger is never the answer, however, since it only reinforces the idea that people who own guns can’t be trusted–an ironic twist since it is backward anti-gun ravings that should incur the scorn of every day Americans.

Gerard Valentino
November 7, 2009
The Good Fight Against the Anti Gun MindSet
[I  spent a good part of my day yesterday being anger over a stupid anti-gun comment by someone. I decided to reload a bunch of ammo rather than make a blog post although the rant I had formulated probably would have released the anger more rapidly.--Joe]

This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
November 7, 2009
Rampage forces review of security policies on Army bases worldwide
[Only if you ignore the facts Paul. Only if you ignore the facts.

The fact is the victims were disarmed--just as they have been in nearly every other mass shooting.

But of course Helmke's organization success is dependent on the ignorance of people. That ignorance is rapidly becoming a thing of the past and is probably the primary reason he and his organization of bigots are becoming as irrelevant as the KKK.--Joe]

Reading the swarm of comments over on Oleg's blog, it seems a lot of military folks, those with real experience, favor keeping people disarmed in barracks and around the base;

It may be hard for some to comprehend, but putting on ACUs doesn't make you a weapons proficient commando. If they let every cook, clerk, and nurse carry around loaded weapons 24/7 there would be many more "accidental" deaths than this per year.

Exactly what the anti gun rights activists say about the population in general, and it's been proven wrong.  We have more guns than ever, and the accident rate continues to fall.  Not weapons proficient?  Them train them, then arm them.  In that order.  Takes only a short while.  Put the second amendment back in force and more of them will be proficient, to some degree, when they arrive, which was of course the original idea, wasn't it, Skippy?

The average "soldier" doesn't shoot for a living and non-combat arms (the vast majority is support) troops are lucky to even see the range twice a year.

Poor training.  Basing policy on poor training is worse than just poor training alone.  So, we can afford billion-dollar bombers, and gazzillion-dollar satellite networks and all that, but a few extra cartridges for a week of training is out of the freaking question.  Even then, I assume there has to be at least a few in the barracks who know one end of a gun from another.  I know-- I just don't understand.  I'd understand if I were in the military, that you don't train too many people too well, 'cause that's "dangerous", even though I see every day here in the real world that that line of thinking is pure horseshit.  The more people equipped and trained in the use of arms, the safer your whole society, and the more versatile and effective your military.  If you people don't trust your own, you need to seriously get the f^#K out.  Now.

They would also have to lock the base down from un-verified (without prior clearance) civilian entry as weapons would be too easily accessed.

"Civilian entry"?  Like at my house, where there's infinitely more firepower than in military barracks?  Like at a gun store or a gun show, or a shooting range, practically anywhere in the country?  So then, it's fine to just let any stranger onto a military base so long as that base is almost as unarmed as a kindergarten-school-gun-free-zone, and it would be worse to let strangers in if people on the base were mostly all armed and capable of defending themselves?  That's hippie logic, right there, folks.  It's right out of Diane Feinstein's teeny tiny little bird brain.

Somebody (re)educate me here (haul me to a camp or something) 'cause I figure that if you're training an army, any time, any where, they should all know how to handle a weapon, from the nurse, to the cook, to the electrician, to the floor sweeper, to the truck driver, etc. (just like in the civilian population) all the way through to the actual combat units.  Falling short of that (because you're in the military and afraid of guns?) I would think that, at the very least, anyone trained in weapon handling should be well-trained, and should be hauling at the very minimum a sidearm around at all times (just like millions of civilians do every day already).

I don't think the ATF gets their wrists slapped often enough for thuggish behavior but it's always a pleasure when it does happen:

A judge found the actions of federal agents who refused to show Zanesville residents a warrant when asked are "completely unreasonable and unjustified."

...

At the suppression hearing in July, Marbley made it clear to agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and Assistant U.S. Attorney David Bosley, that he was unhappy with the way agents handled the search June 18 at the Thompson home on Kopchak Road.

...

Marian Thompson said even though she repeatedly asked for a warrant, none was ever supplied.

Marbley stated in his ruling that "one of the purposes served by the warrant requirement is informing citizens that the executing agents are acting under proper authorization when they invade the sanctity of a citizen's home."

Marian Thompson testified she was fearful when the agents confronted her and without a search warrant, wasn't sure if they truly were agents.

She said she was made to sit outside the home, with only a shirt on, for hours. She was nude when agents came in, she testified, but they did allow her to put a shirt on.

Marbley said nothing indicated that Marian Thompson was uncooperative or in any way jeopardized the search and rather than quickly allaying her fears, her doubt was prolonged for several hours.

Marbley also said not only not showing Marian Thompson the warrant at the onset of the search led to his decision, but because she was forced to partially dress in plain view of 14 officers with guns pointed at her rather than being allowed to dress behind a counter, then made to sit outside in the heat for five hours, went without food or water and never shown any identification of the officers was also in violation of her Fourth Amendment Right.

I think the thugs should be prosecuted under 18 USC 242 and forever barred from a government job. But that's not going to happen. And as long as it doesn't incidents like the above will continue.

Wow! It's almost surreal reading this:

I'll say the last refuge of cowards in the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth has been invoked a lot lately. The Tenth has been mentioned as the reason health-care reform is unconstitutional. It's the way the Speaker of the Tennessee State House says his state can circumvent federal gun laws. It's the states' rights argument carried to the extreme.

The amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What that says, in other words, is that if a power is unclaimed by the federal government -- or if that power is not denied to the states -- then the states have it. The intent is to clarify the basic point that if the feds aren't in charge, the states are.

It's a truism, not a grant of power.

Soon after the framers wrote the original document, it was obvious states couldn't act independently. When the Constitution was written, there wasn't much interstate commerce at all. Going from one end of the country to the other end didn't take five hours -- it took five months. So the federal government claimed some powers to tie up loose ends.

If states acted on their own when it came to matters of interstate commerce, it would be to easy for states to grant monopolies to business, and too easy for large businesses to fix prices and destroy smaller competition.

...

Everyone learns at some point in life that there are three remedies to a negative situation: avoid, alter or accept it. Those against health-care legislation or gun-control laws don't need to accept what they see as bad policy. They should try alter the policy in all the accepted ways.

But reverting to the Tenth Amendment is avoidance. It's the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. And these issues are too important to do that.

After invoking the Tenth Amendment he goes on (there is more than just that above) to justify the Interstate Commerce clause without even mentioning it as if it were the Tenth Amendment.

And did you notice all the errors in the passages above?

• The first line says "...in the Tenth..." instead of "...is the Tenth..." but I figure that is just a typo and I give him a pass on that.
• "It's a truism, not a grant of power. "? It explicitly states that the Feds are not granted most powers and he turns it around to claim the states are not granted powers.
• It took five months to travel from one end of the 13 colonies to the other? It's only about 1500 miles so he is saying the average speed of travel was 10 miles per day. Even with a backpack on and walking on mountain trails I can do better than that.
• The Tenth Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution and it's pretty clear the original intent is being violated. Many other Federal laws have been struck down by the courts as violating various parts of the constitution, including the Tenth Amendment, so it's entirely reasonable to quest whether this law is in violation.

 So it's the author that is the coward avoiding the issue. He gets it exactly backward and calls people invoking the Tenth Amendment cowards. It's called "projection" and it just goes to show he either has mental problems or has crap for brains.

It's rare that the government gives guns to civilians so they can defend themselves. But it's apparently happening in Thailand:

At the local Buddhist temple at Trohgen village in Pattani province a class is being held for a group of mostly female community volunteers - but this is no religious ceremony.

"It's getting more violent every day," said Monthira Peng-Iad, a 40-year-old farmer.

"So many of my relatives have been shot and killed I feel bitter inside. I want to know how to shoot, so I can help people in the village."

Monthira Peng-Iad

...

One human rights group says up to a hundred thousand civilian Buddhists and Muslims have been given guns to "protect" themselves in the three southern provinces of Thailand, but this is a figure the military denies.

This is a BBC report and it's not surprising they put the word 'protect' in quotes. Would they do the same if they were talking about the police being given guns?

What you're going to see (Friday) in this report produced by the national firearms centre ... is that the statistics I just gave you were not included. Whoever put it together didn't put in there the information that only 2.4 per cent of those 3.5 million queries (to the registry) were actually related to information about a long-gun registration number or about a serial number of a gun.

That information was not put there by the people at the national firearms registry so you should ask them why that information wasn't there.

Peter Van Loan
Public Safety Minister, Canada
Battle heats up over gun registry: Minister suggests staff of national database are hiding information to ensure its survival
[If the staff did this it certainly wouldn't be the first time the anti-gun people told half-truths to justify infringing upon a natural right.--Joe]

Washington is a place where politicians don't know which way is up and taxes don't know which way is down.

Robert Orben
[I was reminded of this by the failure of I-1033 in Washington State. Andrew Garber at the Seattle times (previous link) described it this way, "Initiative 1033 would have limited revenue increases for state, city and county governments to the rate of inflation and population growth. Additional money collected above the limit would have been used to reduce property taxes."--Joe]

Most of you probably already visit Kevin's blog regularly.  If you don't, please go and read this piece.  It's by one of his readers, formerly of the U.K.  It'll take you a few minutes, but it's well worth it.  It's an overview of what's been happening in the U.K. and what, I submit, has been happening here in the U.S. though more slowly (until now).

So maybe I'm an idiot.  I was out firing a Colt AR-15 HBAR with a Trijicon ACOG scope.  I'd gone the extra step and drilled through the A2 carry handle on this otherwise pristine Colt so as to add the second mounting screw for the scope.  The BDC (Bullet Drop Compensating) reticle has different crosshairs for elevation at different ranges (wind is of course still up to your doping skills).  You zero at, say, 100 using the main crosshair, and your elevation is supposed to be correct at all the other indicated distances.  One comment on that; it would be much better to refine your zero at greater distances, using that other crosshair, say, at 500 using the number 5 crosshair or etc.

Out in the real world though, your targets aren't placed at nice, even, measured distances, so it gets just a little bit more complicated.  I'd brought a laser with me to do range measurements.  The laser registered a particular target at 385 yards.  Said right there, so it couldn't be wrong, "385 yd".  That's close enough to 400 that I opt for the number 4 crosshair.  Shot went high.  "Not possible-- I called that shot dead on."  Same thing again.  Walking the shots onto the target, I find I have to hold halfway between the number 3 and 4 crosshairs*.  "Crap.  This shouldn't be happening.  I have nigh on three grand worth of equipment in top condition, the right ammo, and a standard length barrel.  What the hell?"

Some of you will already have figured out the problem (I seem to recall something about an interplanetary probe oblitorating itself on Mars due to a similar error).  The ACOG scope is calibrated in meters and the laser was set to display in yards.  A yard is 0.9144 meters.  In realistic rifle shooting distances, we can simplify that to either adding or subtracting 10% to do the conversion in our heads, and be close enough.  At 385 yards I was rounding up to 400, which made sense, but I was still thinking all in yards.  I didn't convert.  385 - 10% (simplify further and subtract 38) =  about 347 meters, or close enough to the 350 meter crosshair for this target.  *Ah Hah!

Better yet would have been to take all of half a minute (only because I don't mess with the settings much and I'd have had to take that long to figure it out) to set the laser to read in meters.

On a nice, relaxing day with a full belly and a Thermos-full of hot coffee (as backup this time) the sun shining and the birds chirping among the beautiful North Idaho scenery, this was more of an amusing lesson than anything serious.  If there is ever a situation in which it really matters, you'll want to be aware of these things in advance, and have taken the necessary steps already.

Part of my problem is that I fool around with so many different weapon systems, in addition to being an idiot.  How does that saying go?  "Beware the man with only one gun."  Something like that.  He knows his weapon backwards and forwards, right and left, upside down and every which way, in the dark, summer and winter, and with one hand tied behind his back just to make if fair he'll still kick your ass.  Hmm.  Maybe there's a new IPSC stage in there somewhere.

Update: With the low recoil of the 5.56 round and a low power optic, you can usually spot your own hits even at longer distances.  Take that for what it's worth.

Seattle may become a very important battle ground with some heavy guns involved. SAF and NRA just filed a lawsuit against the city and I expected an easy win because the law is so clear. But it's not always about truth and justice (some may even say it's rare that truth and justice are the result). This may be one of those cases and it has national implications:

Stepping in to defend Nickels and the city in this confrontation at no charge is the Northwest office of an international law firm, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. This firm, according to its website, has 21 offices in Asia, Europe and North America. It has a history of providing pro bono legal representation to various causes.

Plaintiffs are represented by Seattle attorney Steve Fogg with the Seattle law firm of Corr, Cronin, Michelson, Baumgardner & Preece LLC. According to their website, the firm has been recognized for its litigation abilities.

...

So how does this case have possible national implications? If Seattle’s creative approach as a private property owner simply regulating conduct on its park properties is allowed to stand (that strategy failed in Ohio, where a parks ban imposed by the City of Clyde was struck down by that state’s Supreme Court), it is conceivable that other cities in other states, or even in the Evergreen State, will start pushing the envelope.

I doubled my payroll (and Microsoft matching) contributions to SAF for calendar year 2010. I hope a lot of other people contribute as well.

Barb and I just finished watching the TV series The Unit. We really enjoyed it.

The gun handling and shooting was way above average. They shot around corners correctly, they cleared rooms correctly, they got hits at ranges in times that could be expected from expert shooters.

Barb loves to predict the outcome of any movie or show she watches. Who is going to be the bad guy? How are they going to get out of this predicament?

She is very good at it. So good that our kids tell her to shut up just as soon as her mouth starts to open. I don't mind and frequently play the game as well. Barb was frequently stumped. The writers were very good and we enjoyed the show being unpredictable without "angels flying out of their ass" to save the day. The solutions to the problems the characters faced were nearly always innovative and believable.

It was also very cool that the operatives/shooters wives were a big part of the stories they told. I was afraid that Barb wouldn't care for the show and I would end up watching it alone but the inclusion of the wives side of the drama made a big difference and did not detract from my enjoyment of the show.

There were occasionally things that bugged me about it however. Ironically the biggest was the item that got me to start watching it to begin with.

I had lunch with a friend a few months ago and he asked if it was true that putting mercury in a bullet would cause it to completely disintegrate upon impact because he had seen in on the show. I told him I would have to watch the show to be certain but it probably was just reusing an old plot device.

As near as I can tell the mercury bullet thing first came from the novel The Day of the Jackal (1971) by Frederick Forsyth. I read the book shortly after it came out and was fascinated, as many people are, by the mercury filled bullets. It's a great plot device but as near as I can determine pointless.

First off it's going to be really tough to make the bullet accurate with a liquid moving around inside the bullet. Second, we already have rifle bullets that can, essentially, explode upon impact. Why do you think Speer calls their varmint bullets TNT?

The TNT bullets are only rated at 3100 fps because, according to the manual, they are likely to "explode" before reaching the target if you push them faster than that. I bought some .30 caliber 125 grain TNT "seconds" (the factory is in nearby Lewiston Idaho and they sometimes sell cosmetically defective bullets in bulk to the local gun shops) for breaking in the barrel of my .300 Win Mag. Yeah, isn't that a real kick? Using a 125 grain varmint bullets in .300 Win Mag.

The 3100 fps limit specified didn't really make sense to me. I would have expected a rotational rate limit rather than a velocity rate and I sent a customer service guy I knew at Speer an email. He confirmed what I suspected. It really was a rotational issue. 3100 fps assumed the normal 1:10 twist barrels. But I have a 1:11 twist. Which means I could push them faster. Furthermore he told me that it also assumed a normal hunting type barrel where the rifling was fairly sharp and engraved, and weakened, the bullet jacket considerably. Many match grade barrels resulted in a less compromised jacket and hence you could push the bullets even faster without having them go "poof" on the way to the target. My calculations indicated I should be able to get at least 3400 fps out of them. Cool! Imagine what those bullets are going to do with they hit something.

I decided to use the bullets for something more than breaking in the barrel. I coated my bullets with moly to further reduce the engraving of the jacket by the rifling and began working up a load.

According to my references the min and max loads of Varget for 125 grain bullets in .300 Win Mag are 65 and 70 grains. I worked my way up to the max loads without any signs of excessive pressure. On the range the chronograph told me I was getting a mean muzzle velocity of 3497 fps using the max load. Occasionally one of the bullets won't make it to the target but that's a bit rare. Tests on milk jugs filled with water with a tarp underneath and around them to aid in collecting the pieces confirmed that the bullet essentially disappeared into a collection of lead sand upon impact and the jug behind it would only get a small "puncture wound" from the base of the jacket. The main part of the jacket was torn to shreds and no piece, other than the jacket base, was larger than about 0.1 inches in any dimension.

I use factory loaded 50 grain VMAX bullets in my AR-15 from Black Hills with similar results.

Mercury filled bullets? Why? Because it's a cool plot device.

They are getting closer and closer:

Opponents of a long-gun registry in Canada are about to put a bullet in it.

Both sides of the gun-control debate believe the Conservatives now have enough Commons votes to give parliamentary approval in principle to a private member's bill to kill the registry for rifles and shotguns.

...

Hoeppner said the registry is a waste of $2 billion – referring to the cumulative costs over more than a decade of setting up the licensing and registration system for firearms in Canada.

Just think of all the other things that $2 billion could have been used for that would have been effective in making people safer. More police officers, better equipment, more jails, or even training programs for "people at risk" of committing crimes.

Instead they spent $2,000,000,000 on something that didn't register all the guns, and couldn't accomplish what they promised had it succeeded in it's goals.

If they can actually put this rabid dog down it will be a long time before new firearms registration schemes will be given serious consideration in the U.S.

If.

Spartan ephor
Via the Wikipedia entry on Laconic phrase. This must be the ultimate example.

Direct quote from Wikipedia:

From the time of the invasion of Philip II of Macedon. With key Greek city-states in submission, he turned his attention to Sparta and sent a message: "If I win this war, you will be slaves forever." In another version, Philip proclaims: "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city." The Spartan ephors sent back a one word reply: "If."^[17] Subsequently, both Philip and Alexander would avoid Sparta entirely.

[Very cool.--Joe]

The headline tells the story--London gun crime rises as shootings nearly double.

It must be that someone somewhere needs to have their gun show loophole closed, have one gun a month law passed, or "assault weapons" banned.

Oh yeah. I forgot. They are way past that point with a complete ban on nearly all guns and people increasingly use guns in the commission of violent crimes.

And it's not just a little bit either:

...[T]he number of actual shootings has almost doubled from 123 to 236 in the last six months compared with the same period last year, a rise of 91.8%. Serious firearms offences have risen by 47% across the capital.

So what's the reason they want to ban the guns in our country? What do they think the benefit will be? We know it and they know it. It's not about making people safer. They have some other motivation because the data tells everyone that gun bans do not make people safer.

So what is the real reason for wanting to restrict firearm ownership? After failing to get an answer to Just One Question that should be follow up when they still insist on "common sense" regulation. Either that or just tell the bigots Μολὼν λαβέ.

Crap for brains isn't just in Seattle. It appears to be far too common these days. There should be a law against it.

Oh, yeah. I forgot. There is a law against it. It's Darwin's Law. But we have been helping others violate Darwin's law for so long that stupid is becoming dominate when, by law, it should become more and more rare.

Other people ignore the law and we have to pay the consequences. Life just isn't fair.

Whenever they smell blood they start dancing to the tunes of AK-47s:

Tragic as it was, the cold-blooded drive-by shooting of Officer Timothy Brenton over the weekend handed supporters of a proposed state assault weapons ban with a compelling case to take to Olympia. Even though police say they have not yet determined what weapon was used, Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, says he plans to cite Brenton's murder when lobbying for the bill in the next legislative session.

"Maybe this particular [police victim] wasn't killed with an assault weapon, but the next one maybe will be," Fascitelli says, adding that police safety was a key reason that automatic weapons were banned decades ago and that the International Association of Police Chiefs supports a ban on military-style semiautomatic weapons today.

It doesn't matter if the band playing doesn't even have an AK. Heck, I don't think it would matter if there were even a band.

They apparently live in some sort of alternate reality where their fears of imagined boogie men are sufficient grounds to demand the government infringe upon a specific enumerated right when even their leaders admit they have insufficient evidence to justify their actions. And they call that "a compelling case".

I call it crap for brains.

CCRKBA has something to say too.

It has been found via public records requests that Portland Metro says one thing publicly and has a different internal policy:

...[T]hese locations have signs posted saying that no firearms are allowed and there are no exceptions.

...

In September we made a public records request from Metro asking for all rules and restrictions dealing with firearms at facilities and locations they control. While we still have not received those we have received a copy of an executive order dealing with firearms and license holders that clearly contradicts their stated policies.

While we believe that Metro is reexamining all of its firearms restrictions, until they have corrected the many unlawful rules at locations they control, we want you to have a copy of their executive order which clearly states that license holders are NOT subject to their restrictions.

As is usual the bigots drag their feet as much as possible in their continued attempts to deprive people of specific enumerated rights even when it's made extremely clear to them they are in violation of the law.

Via email from Ben K.

...We circle back around to one of the big problems in our society, which is the idea that line-memorizing clothes horses have anything more valid to say about politics, science, or current events than the hippie on the street corner with a guitar case. The Romans had the right position in society for actors: Above cesspit cleaners, but not as well-respected as a decent whore.

Tamara K.
November 3, 2009
Shame!
[This reminds me of a Robert Heinlein quote:

A whore should be judged by the same criteria as other professionals offering services for pay--such as dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc. Is she professionally competent? Does she give good measure? Is she honest with her clients?

It is possible that the percentage of honest and competent whores is higher than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers. And enormously higher than that of professors.

Lazarus Long
A character in several books by Robert Heinlein.

Getting back to Tamara's quote...

The problem is that people are still largely driven by some evolutionary advantageous urge to listen to and obey those whose faces are familiar rather than actually think for themselves. But of course that presumes said person is capable of and willing to think for themselves. I'm not convinced the majority of people are up to the task yet we protect them from their own stupidity almost as if they were children who would grow up someday. I sometimes see a future where the system collapses and Darwin collects on a massive debt we have been accumulating for the last 100 years. It would have been far, far better in so many ways to pay off Darwin in regular installments than to have the Grim Reaper swing his scythe in such a broad swath as I sometimes see as plausible.--Joe]

The Second Amendment Foundation, NRA, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors filed suit against the city of Seattle (see all the SAF news release):

"Every time the anti-gunners want to push gun control, they say we are doing this for the children," said Alan Gottlieb with the Second Amendment Foundation. "It's almost like it's their lead banner every single time, no matter what."

They say the ban violates Washington State's long-standing preemption statute.

"The ban makes it impossible, under threat of criminal trespass penalty, to lawfully carry firearms for the protection of spouses, partners and children on public property where these citizens have a right to be," he said.

But there was some support for the ban at Green Lake.

"I don't know why anyone needs a gun at a playground or any place where there are kids around," said Brain Nevenhouse.

But for others, they say the need for protection is everywhere. One of those party to the suit is Bob Kennar who supervises parolees for the state. He carries his own gun, because some of the bad guys don't like him.

"It's in the back of my mind," Kennar said. "I don't lose sleep over it, but like the police I know there's a chance that could happen."

Kennar has carried a gun for 29 years. He says the city of Seattle can't tell him no.

Ray Carter is gay. He's a founder of the Seattle Chapter of Pink Pistols. He carries a .380 because he says gays are targets and police can't prevent that.

"They can show up in time to write the report and mop up the blood and maybe find out who did it," Carter said. "As a potential victim that doesn't do me a lot of good."

Carter and Kennar use parks and community centers They understand the desire to protect children, but say they need protection too.

Ray Carter is a Seattle area blogger who uses a pseudonym so I'll not provide the link to his blog. But I have known Ray since long before there were blogs. Ray has been a force in gun rights for many years. See for example this Seattle Time Editorial that mentions both Ray and I. It was at a pizza restaurant in Seattle where Ray, some other pro-gun people and I were planning our (political) attack against the anti-gun organization Washington CeaseFire who had been scoring some painful blows against our rights in the late 1990s. It was Ray who said we should call our little organization for Washington Cease Fear. It was while doing work for this group that I came up with my Jews in the Attic Test. That organization didn't thrive even though it still exists as a the Yahoo Group ceasefear. About a year after our founding and work on Capital Hill (see the Jews in the Attic Test web page) the Pink Pistols came out with essentially the same idea and took the nation by storm. Ray was a founding member of the Seattle Chapter of the Pink Pistols.

I'm not surprised he is taking point on this lawsuit.

As our neighbors to the north attempt to regain a little bit of their freedom the anti-freedom people are "horrified and fearful":

Gun-control advocates say they are horrified and fearful that Canada's long-gun firearms registry is on the verge this week of being scrapped because the Conservatives may have enough support from the opposition to kill it.

Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, says her organization has been monitoring the progress of a Conservative private member's bill to abolish the registry and is now bracing for it to clear an important vote in the Commons on Wednesday.

"It is astonishing, just a few months after the opposition parties voted for a Bloc Québécois motion that reiterated support for the firearms registry and against efforts to repeal it, that many of the same MPs will support this Conservative bill," Cukier said Sunday.

"It not only eliminates the need to register rifles and shotguns but requires that the information contained on seven million registered guns be destroyed."

I find it very telling they don't tell us how many crimes the two billion dollar gun registry helped solved. The last time I heard a number it was one. Yes, one crime was solved that would not have been solved without it. Two billion dollars to solve one crime and these people are "horrified and fearful"?

The only conclusion that I can come up with is that it's not about crime. It's about control. They are "horrified and fearful" they will have less control.

As strongly as the U.K. is politically opposed to guns in the hands of private citizens it sometimes seems they have a fascination with people in the U.S. having guns. Here is an example:

Debbie Ferns travels the USA organising "Ladies Only Gun Camps" complete with pink weapons to encourage women to take up shooting.

Mrs Ferns, 55, from Tucson, Arizona, has also written a book called Babes with Bullets, Women Having Fun With Guns.

"Every woman in America should shoot a gun," said Mrs Ferns, who has more than 20 in her home collection.

She added "As long as the woman is a legal and law-abiding citizen I feel they should at least have a basic education in firearms safety."

The three-day camps, which cost £400, are exploding across the country and in January next year a US TV show will begin documenting the female gun trend.

"It started with one camp in 2004 and now we're planning 15 to 20 camps for 2010," said Debbie, who has helped recruit over 1,000 women to the shooting world.

"Women love it. We get schoolteachers, lawyers, nurses, women from all walks of life.

"They come in as novices and go away with a brand new skill using a powerful tool.

"Quite often they make new lifelong friends at camp as well."

The women-only gun camps are particularly popular with women over the age of 35, up to those in their 60s.

"We have so much fun and it's very exciting.

"It's a fast paced program and by the third day of camp we have women safely drawing from holsters and shooting on the move," said Mrs Ferns. "We often get emails from women telling us that the camp has changed their lives."

There's more and it is a very positive article. I have to wonder what that means for the future of gun ownership in the U.K. Is it an indicator of change for their firearm bans?

I am not arguing here that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of crime, violent crime, or homicide. Such causation is difficult to show because so many other factors bear on the incidence of crime. For instance, simple cross-national comparisons of gun availability and crime do not control for the degree to which various countries impose legal restrictions on firearms. It also is difficult to sort out whether high levels of gun ownership lead to high crime rates or whether high crime rates lead to high levels of gun ownership.

Dennis A. Henigan
Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy page 107.
[I find this an extremely interesting admission. With this admission how can he in good faith advocate for restricting private citizen access to firearms? In essence he is admitting that he cannot answer Just One Question yet he wants to push the envelope as far as he can in infringing upon a specific enumerated right.

As I said in a Tweet yesterday after getting off the plane, I'm nearly certain I could find a fatal flaw on every page of his book. It's filled with half-truths, cherry picked data, and straw man arguments. I stand behind my nickname of Half-Truth Henigan for him.

I do have to give him credit for pointing out a few valid instances of NRA (almost all his attention is directed at the NRA) overstating things as well. John Lott gets some valid criticism too. He is not stupid but he's not going to be winning any awards for piercing insight either.

I'll be posting much more on this book over the next few days. In the meantime take a look at Dave Kopel's review of it.--Joe]