The View From North Central Idaho

You loot, we shoot!

Employees at A.J.'s Produce Co.
A spray-painted bright-red warning for would-be thieves on the sides of the building on Chartres Street in the Bywater neighborhood of New Orleans.
From 2TheAdvocate.com
August 31, 2005

Joseph Farah on World Net Daily touches on something I have been wanting to address in depth for quite a while.  He doesn't go into the depth I want to but he does give people a hint:

Banning guns in workplace

I marvel at the ability of people who don't like America – at least the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers – to open up new fronts in their war on what makes our country uniquely free.

I had this thought again when I heard former Clinton administration Secretary of Labor Robert Reich say it's time to ban guns in the workplace.

 "Listen to the evening news and you're likely to hear a grisly story about a disaffected worker or estranged spouse or dissatisfied client arriving at a workplace and going ballistic," said the diminutive Reich. "It's all too common."

Anytime someone says, "It's all too common" I go on full alert.  What it means is they don't have the numbers to back them up and they are appealing to some sort of subjective standard--their personal standard.

Reich cites as evidence for this crisis, a pseudo-scientific study conducted by Dana Loomis of the University of North Carolina and published in the American Journal of Public Health. Let me dissect, for those who care, the extremely questionable methodology of this study, which purports to show conclusively that homicide is five times more likely at a workplace where guns are permitted than in those where guns are banned.

...

The study compared 87 cases where employees were killed at work sites in North Carolina between 1994 and 1998 and 177 comparable work sites where there were no murders.

Now think for a moment about the kinds of places – the kinds of businesses that ban firearms. Do you think of them as high-risk businesses? Do you think of them as convenience stores open late at night in urban areas? Or do you think of them as big corporations based in suburban settings where crime is low?

So, can we assume that the places where guns are permitted are already much higher-risk settings than where they are banned? Of course.

And Loomis makes no distinction about the kind of homicides that take place in these working environments. In other words, in his study, a high-risk, late-night convenience store held up by an armed intruder is no different than an office setting in which an armed worker draws a gun and shoots a co-worker.

Drawing on this flimsy, shoddy and politically driven research, people like Reich would presumably ban firearms in all businesses – banks, all-night 7-Elevens, maybe even gun stores, though my assumption is that they would eventually be banned altogether by the people promoting such ideas.

I have said this before and I will say it again: The only people safe in these so-called "gun-free zones," whether they are schools or businesses or churches, are armed criminals.

Criminals, by definition, do not care about laws. Only the law-abiding care about them. So, making more laws or rules and regulations that ban firearms in places only encourages violent criminals to do what they do – kill, rob, rape, maim.

There is nothing incorrect about what he says but if I had the time I would take it much further.  In almost all cases these sorts of "studies" fail to distinguish between justified and unjustified homicide.  Did Reich engage in this sort of bias as well?  What about other weapons?  Is there a high rate of injuries from people using other type of weapons in the same business that have high injury rates from people using firearms?  If so then there is at least one other factor in common with the high injury rate other than firearms.  And what about the percentage of attacks that were stopped before the police arrived in places that allowed firearms versus those that didn't?  Shouldn't that be true measure?  And I would ask Reich if he believe that policemen responding to an 'event' should leave their firearms behind.  After all, if the possession of a firearm by an employee is dangerous why isn't it dangerous for the policeman to bring a firearm into the situation as well?

As you might guess I watch at least some of my website log files pretty closely.  Yesterday and last night I started getting some hits referred from a new source.  It was Voice of the Taciturn.  He only mentioned my situation in passing:

National labs have a great way of dealing with those they perceive to be misfits and malcontents or just plain undesirable. Generally speaking, it involves getting the third degree, slapped up-side the head with policies you don’t get to read yourself so that you might try to fight back, and unemployment.

Not a big deal but interesting take on things in the greater context of his posting. 

However, there may be a big deal if things go as planned.  I believe there will be some significant news to report next week.  I've been spending a lot of time on this and I expect there will be some interest in the latest developments.  Barb says I should have sent a copy of one of the letters I sent yesterday to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.  "Why?" I asked.  "To make them sweat.", she replied.  Barb isn't one to hold back when something irritates her.  I prefer to calmly sit back, perhaps go on vacation and watch as the realization of reality washes over my adversaries.  Maybe next week...

Wendy Cukier, President Coalition for Gun Control, and moonbat extraordinaire sent out a news release yesterday:

... international standards for marking and tracing, for import and export and for the regulation of firearms is essential to preventing the diversion of legal guns to illegal markets and the efforts over the last 8 years at the United Nations to combat the illegal trade have been important.

By all means, shouldn't we combat illegal trade and stop legal guns from getting into illegal markets?  It's just common sense, right?  Why are so many people opposed to common sense gun laws?  The only people opposed must be red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthals and criminals.  How could it be any other way?

That depends.  What's your definition of an "illegal market"?  The store in the state prison?  Okay, I won't argue that one today.  But what about those people prohibited from weapon ownership by the Weapons Control Act of 1938?  That law, passed in March of 1938, made it illegal for certain "undesirable" people to own weapons.  The state would provide for their protection, if they needed it.  In November of that same year there was a "spontaneous" riots against those same "undesirables" who had been disarmed.  It was called Kristallnacht, the "Night of Broken Glass."  The riot lasted for two days as the fire and police brigades stood by.  The morning after the riot was over 30,000 arrests were made.  The arrests were of the "undesirables" who were the targets of the riot and not the rioters.  The government was implementing it's first attempt at a solution to "the problem of the Jews".  By the fall of 1941 they were implementing the Final Solution to the Jewish question.  Any weapons delivered to Jewish people and other "undesirables" was a crime by that German law of 1938.  What about the shipments of arms into that market?  Would Cukier have supported that law?

One of the argument the moonbats make is that arming people just prolongs the conflict and makes a return to peace more difficult.  I'm sure that is true.  The 10 million dead from the Final Solution are very peaceful now.  That conflict (the extermination of millions) would have taken much longer had the victims been able to defend themselves better.  Wouldn't that have been terrible?

There were no 20th centery genocides without there first being a gun control law to remove the weapons from the target of the genocide.  Estimates vary but somewhere between 60 and 200 million civilians (men, women, and children, not just soldiers!) were murdered in the 20th century by government sponsored programs of extermination--all of them were victims of gun control.  How many millions will there be in the 21st century if we don't learn the lesson from the 20th century?

What Cukier (Kooker?  How appropriate is that?) apparently doesn't realize is that ownership of weapons is a right even more essential than freedom of speech or any other natural right.  Without the means to enforce your rights the others mean nothing.  The government can infringe upon them at will with virtually no recourse.  You cannot have a secure free state without the right to keep and bear arms.  This entire concept has been expressed succinctly as, "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."  This right shall not be infringed!  So, as Lyle in the comments section of this post, says, "... there's one legitimate gun law in America. It makes it illegal to write gun laws."  I think Lyle, while correct, is a bit narrow in his scope.  I would expand that to international scope.  Laws restricting personal weapons in any country are as revolting and without moral authority as laws authorizing slavery or genocide--which is what those weapons laws enable.

Michelle Malkin gives a good overview of the situation in New Orleans with links to pictures and video.  There is massive flooding with both airports underwater, the mayor estimates 80% of the city is underwater--some of it 20 feet deep, at least one major bridge was destroyed, etc, etc. 

Steve Sabuldowsky of BayouBuzz.com says:

Unless the two block breach in Bucktown is fixed, New Orleans which is already 80% flooded according to Mayor Nagin will destroy the City of New Orleans.  In my view, that includes the CBD and French Quarter.

...

New Orleans might not be able to survive the total inundation of water that is rising so quickly and causing so much damage.  With Slidell, St. Bernard and other cities and Parishes so completely devastated it will take more than a Marshall Plan to restore Louisiana to its glory.  It will take a miracle for the city of the Saints.

One of the commenter's to a previous post of mine asked, "Do you really think that it's possible that the entire city will be completely gone after this hurricane?"  Yes, it's possible.  It almost for certain will not be completely gone this time, but it is possible it will happen next time.  Next time could be next month, next year, or 10 years from now.  It won't wait 50 years, the technology just doesn't exist and almost for certain won't exist in time to save this city.  This time it will just be 20% (a number I pulled out of the air, or should I say water?) of the net worth of the city will be destroyed.  Someday, in the not too distant future, New Orleans will be a water and silt filled archaeological site.

Serious consideration should be given to only rebuilding enough of New Orleans to use the port temporarily.  Spend the money saved on building a new port where the Mississippi natural outlet is (something like 100+ miles to the west).  Move the people in the path of the new waterway out of there.  Then gradually over a course of days, weeks, months, whatever, allow the river to change it's course.  Then tell people in the firmest terms available that if they build below sea level they are asking for Darwin Awards.  If they persist then let them collect their awards.

Update: I'm not the only one talking about giving up on New Orleans.

Update2: Novel application of a shotgun:

People used axes, and in at least one case a shotgun, to blast holes in roofs so they could escape their attics. Many who had not yet been rescued could be heard screaming for help, police said.

But is this allowed under the "sporting purposes" criteria of GCA 68?

Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy.

John Derbyshire
National Review

Actually it was a small U-Haul truck.  They used the "shuttle" because the big moving van couldn't make it into the confines of where Ry used to live.  They called at 9:00 this morning to gain access to Ry's old home.  I had the key as Ry now lives in the Seattle area working for Microsoft. 

On Saturday I helped Ry prepare for the move by taking my Astrovan over and hauling things to the dump.  Ry's main objective was to get out of town before Barb could see all the stuff I set aside to bring home, then find and kill him.  But since she and Xenia were at yard sales all morning I figured Ry was safe.  And besides, a lot of that stuff is going to friends and relatives of mine that I'm certain will be pleased to get it.  Ry, his kids, and I worked all day Saturday to get things ready for the move.  It was a small place but there was a lot of stuff to do.  I left before it was quite all done.  Then later Ry stopped by pick up a few rounds of linked .50 BMG ammo and to say good-bye before his drive back to the Seattle area.

Yesterday Xenia and I went over to do some cleaning.  More cleaning needs to be done now that the stuff is moved out and we'll get it done before the end of the month so Ry doesn't have to pay another months rent on the place.

The movers arrived, called me for access and I was over there in 15 minutes.  It would have been only 10 but one of the dogs "marked" one of my shoes I was going to put on.  I pointed out the stuff to be moved and the room to stay out of because it contained my garbage can, vacuum cleaner, and a few cleaning supplies.  There wasn't much there and it was all packed and the small truck was rolling into town to the moving van by about 11:45.  I followed the truck into town from Ry's place.  A sadness washed over me as I watched the truck drive away with the last of Ry's belongings.  At Mountain View Road I turned south and they turned north.  I went on to UltiMAK to dump off the stuff Ry was giving to them and they headed towards the other side of town and the moving van that would deliver Ry's belongs to him--340 miles away.  I'm chatting on-line with him right now as I write this but I'll miss the talks until the early morning light in my living room and the impromptu trips to the range with my chemistry set to try out a new Boomershoot mix.

Heavy sigh... closure.

Ahhh.... It's nice to see editorial writers whacking the anti-freedom liberals with a clue by four--even if it is in Canada instead of the U.S.:

When we first read the headline in last Thursday's Sun - "Feds taking aim at gun violence" - we thought that there must have been some mistake.

Gun violence? What gun violence? We have a very expensive national gun registry that was put into place to ensure that every firearm in Canada can be tracked. We have cumbersome regulations in place that make it more difficult for Canadians to buy guns. We have armies of bureaucrats shuffling paper to and fro to make sure that everything related to guns in this country is all very above-board and law-abiding.

So there can't possibly be any gun violence in Canada!

...

Back in late 1994, when then-justice minister Allan Rock first unveiled the gun-control program, he declared, "This tough new gun-control program will improve public safety and also send a strong message that the criminal misuse of guns will not be tolerated."

Eleven years later, the Liberals are suddenly worried about gun crime because Toronto has been blitzed by gun violence. In a more sane country, Toronto would realize that the gun registry has been exposed as an expensive waste of money and would punish the Liberals for lying to them by voting them out. And the Grits would shut down their useless registry and put the money into actual police officers fighting crime.

As we said, these lessons are all going to go unlearned.

True.  The lessons will go unlearned.  But at least whacking them alongside the head a few times and giving them a special mention for When Prophecy Fails provides some satisfaction.

Update: American Realpolitik comments on this same editorial about the succession talk in western Canada inspired in part by the oppressive anti-gun laws imposed on them by the east.

One of these days the talking will be over and the citizenry of the United States will decide whether or not to remain free.

Dan W. Shoemaker

I commented on this sort of thing last September.  New Orleans had a miss then when Ivan came to town.  But it appears Ivan was a poor shot and minor caliber compared to Katrina--scheduled to hit tomorrow morning:

Hundreds of thousands of New Orleans residents fled inland on Sunday as Hurricane Katrina strengthened into one of the fiercest U.S. storms ever seen and barrelled towards the low-lying Gulf Coast city.

...

Katrina had a central pressure -- a measure of a storm's intensity -- of 902 millibars, which would make it one of the four strongest storms on record. The Labour Day hurricane of 1935 that hit the Florida Keys, killing some 600 people, was the strongest with a minimum central pressure of 892 millibars on landfall.

They are evacuating the city.  It's quite possible this will be the last evacuation.  The city is below sea level and it is only going to get worse as time goes on.  As I said last year:

My belief is that long term the people and businesses of New Orleans should close up and move out.  Barring some extraordinary technological breakthroughs in earth moving (I'm talking raising an entire city from deep down under the water soaked earth) and/or lowering the sea this battle cannot be won.  It's better to surrender gracefully than to let the enemy annihilate you.  Spend the billions on salvage and rebuilding in another location, but surrender the current New Orleans to it's muddy grave.

This could be the end of New Orleans.  Interesting times we live in.

Update: I've been reading some of the articles about Katrina and New Orleans.  They are incredibly sobering. 

• L.A. Times
• CNN
• Biloxi Sun Herald
• Washington Post

A family member recently returned from Bolivia informs us that Bolivian gun laws may be the best in the world. There are none, and Bolivia gets by with a serious law against murder. Funny that no one in Britain or America has thought of that so far!

Jeff Cooper
From Jeff Cooper's Commentaries
Vol. 4, No. 9
August 1996

Does this guy Kane think we are idiots?  Rhetorical question alert--Or is he an idiot?  From the Washington Post:

"I'm committed to not violating the Second Amendment or infringing upon the gun rights of law-abiding citizens," Kaine, the lieutenant governor, said to a handful of supporters and local reporters who were on hand to watch him shoot. "I'm committed to protecting that constitutional right to hunt and fish. . . . I value the traditions that Virginians value."

Who, in their right mind, believes that while guaranteeing our rights to free speech, freedom of religion, due process, a speedy trial by a jury of our peers, etc. etc. the writers of the Bill of Rights were guaranteeing the people the right to "hunt and fish" with the Second Amendment?  (I think it was Rolf that pointed out that particular argument to me.)  As if they were anticipating a similar absurd claim the founding fathers wrote, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." as part of that guaranteed right.  As someone else once said, "It ain't about duck hunting."  If you still don't get it, here is a clue.

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

George Washington
Speech of January 7, 1790

Considering the source--probably not (according to Jihad Watch).  But it makes for interesting reading:

Los Angeles, Alta California - August 23, 2005 - (ACN) The USA mainstream media is "filtering" the news coming out of Iraq. It is not reporting on certain items deemed by the Pentagon to be detrimental to the morale of US troops or their families back home. Conspicuously absent are any reports on "Juba", a sniper who has been terrorizing US soldiers in Baghdad for months. Juba is the name given by US forces to a superbly trained insurgent sniper who has already killed at least 19 GI's including four US Marine snipers in one day.

As if our mainstream media would ever hold back any demoralizing news coming out of Iraq.

No US soldier has ever seen Juba. They only hear one distinctive shot from a Tabuk sniper rifle (An Iraqi sniper rifle based on the Soviet Kalashnikov but fitted with a long barrel and a muzzle brake. It uses the 7.62mm Kalashnikov cartridge) and the next thing they see is another GI slumping down dead. The hit is usually to the head but Juba also aims at gaps in the GI's body armor. He has been known to hit his mark from 300 yards which is the length of three football fields. Juba takes only one shot and then disappears.

If I knew a sniper was after me I can't think of a single center-fire rifle cartridge I would rather he used.  Accuracy and power are both pathetic with this round.

US troops who scramble to find Juba soon after he has struck find only his trademark that consists of a single 7.62mm Kalashnikov cartridge casing with a handwritten note. The note, in Arabic, says, "What has been taken in blood cannot be regained except by blood". The note is signed, "The Baghdad Sniper".

Juba is now a mythic hero to the Iraqi resistance. Word on the streets of Baghdad, from those who know Juba, is that his rifle is running out of space to add more "notches" that signify US occupation soldiers he has killed. Juba is now training an "elite" insurgent sniper squad that will target personnel coming in and out from Baghdad's Green Zone.

He's running out of room for notches?  I thought he had only killed 19 GI's.  What does he cut his notches with?  An out of control chain saw?

A particular worrisome development for USA based warmongers is a CIA intelligence report that says that a superbly trained Islamic sniper squad is on its way to the USA. According to the report, the Al-Ikhwan Al-Moslemoon (Muslim Brotherhood)is preparing to send a highly trained sniper squad to the USA that will target, at first, the lower and middle level leadership of the Islamophobic organizations that cater to the Zionists. This, we presume, includes the lackeys of the Zionists on radio and television. A few weeks ago, these puppets of Israel added insult to injury when they went on a vile tirade in support of the "toilet flushers" of the Holy Koran at Guantanamo. Many of these radio talk jockeys are not Jews but they act as mouthpieces for their employers who are. One of these virulent pundits for the Zionists said over the airwaves, "US soldiers at Guantanamo should have used the pages of the Koran to wipe their asses!"

And how did they come across a CIA intelligence report?  Yeah, right.  And all the major media outlets are owned or managed by Jews?  If that were so then I would expect the major theme MSM would be much greater support for war in Iraq and against Muslims instead of weeks of haranguing of GI's for minor offenses in the prison where Muslims are held.

If a "superbly trained Islamic sniper squad" does show up it might have the benefit of increasing the number of private citizen carrying firearms for protection.  And if they put a decent bounty on their scalps firearms instructors will see marked increase in their class sizes.  Would we lose some people?  Almost for certain the answer is yes, but their kill ratio would be much better with suicide bombers at the loss of unskilled button pushers instead of "superbly trained" snipers.

This editorial in the Seattle PI is surprisingly good.  I would have expected something in the PI to be more of the nature of "Give the government more money and power so it can protect us better."  It's not that way at all.  In fact he points out a change in passenger attitudes is a major deterrent to future hijackings:

A repetition of 9/11-style attacks became less likely, not because of increased airport security, but because of a change in passengers' responses to airline hijackings.

And he correctly points out how we ended up with 100% loss of our 4th Amendment when we travel on commercial airlines:

How did we get to this abysmal state of affairs? Because even in times of crises -- in fact, especially in times of crises -- politics plagues government security efforts. Congress and the bureaucracy have to show the nervous public that they are doing something, even if those efforts make little sense. Sixty-five percent of the funds spent on domestic homeland security goes toward aviation security alone, leaving many fewer resources for measures at ports, borders and on mass transit.

The public should demand that the TSA be abolished and airport security be reprivatized. Perhaps it would be a first step toward ending the paranoia that has resulted in excessive emphasis on airport security to the exclusion of everything else.

I only partially agree with his conclusions.  Before we reprivatized airport security we should research the alternatives.

...researchers concluded that the total 1992 cost of firearm violence was $112 billion when taking into consideration direct medical costs, lost productivity, and lost quality of life. This study also reported that each of the estimated 4.91 billion bullets sold in 1992 represented $23 in costs due to firearm violence, including $0.60 in medical and emergency services, $7.20 in lost productivity, and $15.10 in pain, suffering, and lost quality of life.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
From: http://www.gunfree.org/csgv/bsc_eco.htm (as of 11/12/98)
[They neglect to report on the benefits in lives saved, property protected, improved quality of life, and lack of tyrants due to those same 4.91 billion bullets.--Joe]

From World Net Daily:

TEL AVIV – Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei and members of various Palestinian terror groups this week decided at a meeting "resistance" against Israel would continue and would be coordinated at the national level until the Jewish state evacuates "all territories," WND has learned.

Earlier this week, it was reported Qurei held a private conference in Damascus with leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. According to media reports, the parties reached an agreement under which the PA would not attempt to disarm the terror groups in spite of recent U.S. and Israeli calls for the groups to be dismantled after the Gaza evacuation.

...

But security sources close to the meeting told WND agreements reached at the conference went one step further – it was concluded the Palestinians would continue to use "resistance" against Israel until the Jewish state leaves "all occupied territories" – code for the destruction of Israel. The resistance, the sources said, is to be coordinated between the Palestinian groups and based on the foundations of Palestinian unity.

...

Afterward, the Battalions held a press conference in which a spokesman stressed his group's determination to "do whatever it took" to liberate the "rest of our land," including kidnapping Israelis and committing "resistance attacks."

How many times do we need to learn this lesson?  Their extremist culture must be destroyed.  They give us no alternatives but our own destruction.

Update: That didn't take long:

Driving home fears Palestinian terror groups will use land gained by Israel's Gaza evacuation to launch rockets deeper inside the Jewish state, two Qassams today were fired at western Negev towns as Israeli troops prepared the Gaza Strip for handover in the next few weeks.

You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go around repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence.

Charles A. Beard
American historian

Today I received my security file from the Department of Energy.  Enclosed was the first specific allegation of wrongdoing on my part.  They claimed I used the company computer for hosting my personal websites.  This allegation is completely false and I explained this to HR on May 26th in response to their vague questions about "large quantities of personal information" on the company computers.  As I then suspected, they didn't believe me.  They could have verified my story with any number of my co-workers, the customer, the IT department (who would be aware of any traffic of that nature on the network), by looking up the IP addresses associated with those websites, or a call to my hosting provider.  They apparently did none of those things. I know for certain they didn't talk to my co-workers and my hosting provider.  I suspect they did not talk to the customer--for reasons I can't go into here.  This explains why they claimed I was dishonest.  They didn't believe me and didn't bother to check it out.

Why did they not bother to check out my story?  I can only think of the following reasons:

• They didn't want to know the truth--they needed an excuse to fire me for being "a gun nut".
• They were/are incompetent.

Am I missing something?

We'll know the gun-grabbers have been put out of business when you can buy a blister pack of six Glock's at Costco.

Attributed (but unconfirmed) to Greg Hamilton

We temporarily dodged another attack on our civil liberties in California.  From Sacramento:

Attorney General Bill Lockyer has shelved a novel gun-control measure that would have required manufacturers to stamp microscopic serial numbers on all handgun ammunition sold in California.

Sen. Joe Dunn, a Garden Grove Democrat carrying the legislation for the attorney general, said he needed more time to resolve a heated debate over how much the potentially landmark tracking system would cost and who would pay for it. 

The bill, SB 357, has passed the Senate and is pending in an Assembly fiscal committee as the Legislature pushes through its final three weeks of this year's session. The measure may be taken up where it sits next year, the second in the two-year session.

The legislation would require manufacturers to imprint or etch a serial number on the end of each slug or bullet starting in 2009. Boxes of cartridges bearing the same number could then be linked to purchasers with the swipe of a driver's license at the time of sale.

...

Dunn said he will work during the coming months to resolve fears that his bill could pose a financial burden on some law enforcement personnel who are required to purchase ammunition for training.

"It's a legitimate question that we will respond to," Dunn said.

He was less optimistic about bringing manufacturers together with companies that have developed methods to code ammunition. Regardless, he predicted the measure will be delivered to the governor next year.

However, opponents say Lockyer and Dunn have yet to sell the proposal to much of the state's law enforcement community.

Prominent organizations, such as those representing the state's district attorneys and police chiefs, have declined to endorse the bill, noted Lawrence Keane, general counsel of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, an industry trade group better known as SAAMI.

"I think it's pretty clear that law enforcement by and large is not supporting this effort," Keane said.

Manufacturers say the proposal would force expensive changes on a high-volume, low-margin business. Keane and others have warned the required manufacturing modifications would either drive companies out of business or result in steep price increases.

It doesn't bother them it how much it would cost private citizens or how a black market of out of state or stolen ammo would fill the "market niche".  It only bothers them that it would be a burden to law enforcement.  I guess that means they serve the state and not the people.  Does the phrase "Police State" ring a bell with anyone?

From Wired News (as pointed out by Schneier):

The British government is preparing to test new high-tech license plates containing microchips capable of transmitting unique vehicle identification numbers and other data to readers more than 300 feet away.

Officials in the United States say they'll be closely watching the British trial as they contemplate initiating their own tests of the plates, which incorporate radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags to make vehicles electronically trackable.

"We definitely have an interest in testing an RFID-tagged license plate," said Jerry Dike, chairman of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and director of the Vehicle Titles and Registration Division of the Texas Department of Transportation.

...

Proponents argue that making such RFID tags mandatory and ubiquitous is a logical move to counter the threat of terrorists using the roadways, and that it will scoop up insurance and registration scofflaws in the process.

This scheme fails my Jews in the Attic Test and must be vigorously opposed.  Besides, terrorists will just destroy or otherwise neutralize the transmitter when they go on a mission.  And if detection and sanctions are in place for destroyed devices they will just destroy the devices on vehicles at random in the shopping mall parking lot until the population at large is fed up with the harassment and the police effectively ignore destroyed devices.  It's costly, it can't accomplish it's intended goals, and it's a hazard to freedom.  Don't even bother testing it.

For some reason I don't think they chose the right picture to encourage people to support their efforts (the article is titled The world's first global gun treaty enters into force):

If your stomach hurts and you feel like crying (as I do right now) after reading my quote of the day below here is a little something on the light side.  Of course if you read Kim du Toit or Neaderpundit this is a repeat for you: Best? Movie. Clip. Ever.

On 24 September 1999, the Security Council convened its first meeting at ministerial level devoted to the issue of small arms. A report (S/2000/1092) was prepared with the assistance of internationally recognized experts following the ministerial meetings request that the Secretary-General “develop a reference manual for use in the field on ecologically safe (amended in report S/2000/1092 to read 'environmentally sound') methods of weapons destruction in order better to enable Member States to ensure the disposal of weapons voluntarily surrendered by civilians or retrieved from former combatants”. The report has been used as a guide in the preparation of this aide mémoire.

...

...

A DESTRUCTION HANDBOOK
Small arms, light weapons, ammunition and explosives
UNITED NATIONS
http://disarmament2.un.org/DDAPublications/desthbk.pdf

Give the TSA one-way ticket to oblivion.  A pretty good article too.  It's only a half-way measure, but it's a step in the right direction.

If you work for or are considering working for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory keep in mind they play little word games in an attempt to avoid complying with the law.

At 11:24:36 today I got a call from Mr. Mike Talbot (see page 2 of the FOIA and Privacy Act request).  I had called him last Thursday after getting his response to my requests of July 21.  The letter said I already had my personnel file and therefore they weren't sending it to me again.  When I called last Thursday I told him the file I had received didn't contain my performance reviews and goals.  He said he would look into it.  The call from him today was the followup on that conversation.  He said, as I found out after I had talked to him, that my performance reviews and other information I was requesting was in my "Field File", not the "Personnel File". And because it was in the "Field File" it did not fall under the Privacy Act as per the contract Battelle has with the Department of Energy.

I don't care about the details of their contract, I don't care what they call the file, and I don't really care if it's the Privacy Act or Washington State Law that covers it.  I just know they are supposed to give me the information in those files.  Here is the applicable Washington State Law:

RCW 49.12.240
Employee inspection of personnel file.

Every employer shall, at least annually, upon the request of an employee, permit that employee to inspect any or all of his or her own personnel file(s).

RCW 49.12.250

Employee inspection of personnel file -- Erroneous or disputed information.

(1) Each employer shall make such file(s) available locally within a reasonable period of time after the employee requests the file(s).

(2) An employee annually may petition that the employer review all information in the employee's personnel file(s) that are regularly maintained by the employer as a part of his business records or are subject to reference for information given to persons outside of the company. The employer shall determine if there is any irrelevant or erroneous information in the file(s), and shall remove all such information from the file(s). If an employee does not agree with the employer's determination, the employee may at his or her request have placed in the employee's personnel file a statement containing the employee's rebuttal or correction. Nothing in this subsection prevents the employer from removing information more frequently.

(3) A former employee shall retain the right of rebuttal or correction for a period not to exceed two years.

I have the results posted from the August 7th Lewiston Pistol Club match.  As I stated before I came in 4th overall.  Acceptable--considering the lack of recent practice.

About 18:30 on August 19th (Friday night) Barb and I decided to go to the B-23 bomber that crash landed on Loon Lake and slid into the forest in 1943 for our 29th wedding anniversary.  We threw some stuff in the Jeep and drove to Riggins expecting to find a motel in either Whitebird or Riggins.  There were none.  The fire fighters had taken what the tourist hadn't.  We ended up finding an open spot in a campground just off the Salmon river about 12:30 AM on Saturday morning and slept in the Jeep.  After waking at about 6:30 we drove about 50 miles, mostly on one-lane roads, to Chinook campground.  We hiked ten miles round trip from Chinook Campground to the crash site and back to replace a missing geocache (B-23).  Barb had not been there before and was very impressed with the site.  The pictures are here.

On the way out we figured we should go through McCall to improve our chances of finding a motel.  We arrived back at the Jeep about 18:00 tired and sore.  From the Chinook Campground it took us only an hour to reach McCall. Again, the motels were all full except for a luxury suite for $225/night.  We drove to New Meadows.  Again, all full.  We called several motels in Grangeville.  Again, all full.  We drove north, dirty, tired, and getting hungry.  At Pinehurst we found a motel with a Vacancy sign.  We rang the bell and waited, and waited.  Finally a man appeared to tell us his "No" sign was broken.  We drove to Riggins and found a motel with two rooms available.  We were thrilled!  We showered and went to dinner.  It was about 20:40 when we walked into the restaurant.  Except for the cook and the waitress we had the place entirely to ourselves.  Riggins appears to close up early on Saturday nights.  It was great food and we went to bed tired and very happy.  It was a great day in the woods and one of our best anniversaries yet.

Analog Kid at Random Nuclear Strikes is putting on the rifle postal match I am participating in.  Here is my entry, 100 yards, .300 Winchester Magnum, Blackhills Match ammo.  Except for the sighter target you can see a higher resolution version by clicking on the image.

Temperature was 74 F, indicated altitude of 2300 feet above sea level and my calculator said to use a sight angle of 3.75 MOA.  I took two sighter shots and figured it was good enough:

Two sighter shots.

After the first shot on the real target (below, ball #1) I started aiming at the bottom of the circle which contained the number. 

Completed target.

The shots on balls 10 through 15 were done by the light of my van headlights.  It was about 20:15 when I fired my last shot and getting very dark:

Well...not really.  It's just that the TSA apparently has a severe case of rectal cranium inversion.  From CNN:

Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the United States because their names are the same as or similar to those of possible terrorists on the government's "no-fly list."

...

The TSA has a "passenger ombudsman" who will investigate individual claims from passengers who say they are mistakenly on the lists. TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said 89 children have submitted their names to the ombudsman. Of those, 14 are under the age of 2.

It was Schneier's post that alerted me.  He is more polite than I on this topic.

Update: As one of the comments indicates it appears the TSA says to allow kids under a certain age to travel even if their name is on the watch list.  But if it's "in the fine print" the ticket agent is almost for certain going "to play it safe".

Diplomacy:  The art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock.

Will Rogers

Anonymous adaptation
["Sight picture" refers to having the sights on your firearm aligned on the target correctly. -- Joe]

I scanned in the letter (page 1 and page 2) I received today.  Basically they said, "You have all the documents you are going to get."  But they did give me a link to a website with at least some of the Policies and Procedures Manual.  This was a big help.  It explains a couple of things.  It includes list of things that can result in First Offense Termination.  It includes "dishonesty" and "unauthorized disclosure, access, or use of information that is proprietary or confidential to PNNL or its clients".  Both of those items were in my termination letter and were totally unexpected and unjustified.  I was completely taken aback they said such things about me--particularly since they never confronted me and asked for any explanation about any such allegations.  It was only be including those things that they could justify a first offense termination.

It was also by going through this Policies and Procedures website that I was able to find out how they justified not sending my performance reviews.  I asked for my "Personnel File."  They did send me my "Personnel File."  What I was interested in was in my "Field File."  I see...

I'll post more as I learn more.  See also the new section at the bottom of the main page of the PNNL info site.

Or should that be "millimeters away"?  It's not a lot of progress but it's encouraging:

EDMONTON -- All Canadians should have the right to buy private health insurance to complement their care in the medicare system, the country's leading doctors' group says.

The Canadian Medical Association said, in essence, that a recent Supreme Court of Canada judgment, which struck down a ban on private health insurance in Quebec because patients were not ensured timely access to care, should apply to all Canadians.

In doing so, the CMA, which represents the country's 62,000 doctors, also clearly rejected the notion yesterday that there should be a medicare monopoly. It did so just one day after doctors gave their backing to the existence of a parallel, private for-profit health system.

...

Barry Erlick, a physician from Toronto, told his colleagues that buying private insurance would be a wise investment because the medicare system cannot keep pace with demand for services.

"Governments are failing my patients today," he said during the debate. "We are saying, 'Give our patients options to alleviate their suffering.' "

I had a chat with Don Kates yesterday.  Although he lives in Washington State he isn't licensed to practice there.  He suggested another "very gun friendly" lawyer to talk to for help on my case.

The Republic is in very bad shape - probably the worst since 1776 - but it does us all well to remember that the principles of the Founding Fathers stand as sound and irrefutable today as yesterday. We must bear in mind that "they" cannot disarm us. They do not have the legal power, of course, but neither do they have the physical power. An army may be defeated by another army, but the people of a nation cannot be, as long as they are aware of their principles and maintain their determination to observe them. We hope, of course, that "they" never presume to try, because "they" simply cannot do it. What the American people need is the viscera to tell "them" No! God grant that we still have the courage!

Jeff Cooper
Jeff Cooper's Commentaries
Vol. 2, No. 2
31 January 1994
[Those were very dark days in the mid-90's.  Most people forget how serious things were and how much they have improved. -- Joe]

It's only a clue, but it's a start:

The federal agency in charge of aviation security is considering major changes in how it screens airline passengers, including proposals that an official said would lift the ban on carrying razorblades and small knives as well as limit patdown searches.

The Transportation Security Administration will meet later this month to discuss the plan, which is designed to reduce checkpoint hassles for the nation's 2 million passengers. It comes after TSA's new head, Edmund S. "Kip" Hawley, called for a broad review in hopes of making airline screening more passenger-friendly.

Someone should do some serious research into the alternatives.  It won't be the TSA, of course, because they might find out they are irrelevant or even counter productive.

Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

Jeffrey R. Snyder
A Nation of Cowards
Published in the Fall, '93 issue of The Public Interest, a quarterly journal of opinion published by National Affairs, Inc.

I failed in my primary objective last weekend.  I wanted to get hoods over the locks and hasps to comply with the ATF.  Originally they said the locks and hasps I was using were fine but now I need to put the hoods on them.  Not that big of a deal except I needed a welder out in the middle of the field.  The welder I would have used was in use since it was on the back of a service truck being used in harvest.  Harvest will be over in a couple weeks and I'll go back and finish up that task. 

What I did get done was fixing some electrical problems and properly storing more of the thousands of pounds of Ammonium Nitrate I bought.  I had stored about 1200 pounds in six garbage cans under a tarp.  I rearranged things inside the metal shed and got that down to about 600 pounds stored under the tarp.  I destroyed several yellowjacket nests inside the shed.  Put out more mice and rat poison.  And finally--I don't know how many times I have bumped my head on the overhead flourescent light.  I moved it so I can stand upright even while wearing a hat.  More pictures here.

Gun owners compromised in England and now look at things.  The anti-gun owner bigots in England can't be happy with a total ban on handguns!  Now they are going after imitation guns:

Steve Walker of GCN said "...our position is clear. If it looks like a gun it should not be allowed."

Gill Marshall-Andrews, GCN's chair, said: "No one needs a realistic imitation gun - except perhaps a re-enactment society."

GCN is Gun Control Network.  Check out their objectives.  This is what you can expect if you attempt to compromise with them.  Who could imagine that two or more people outside of a mental hospital would insist there be a "Ban on the sale, manufacture and import of imitation guns and their possession in a public place."?  Why does the newpaper consider the rantings of lunatics newsworthy?

Any fool can make a rule
And every fool will mind it.

Henry David Thoreau
(1817-62), U.S. philosopher, author, naturalist.
Journals (1906), entry for 3 Feb. 1860.

Bruce Schneier reports on a new method of airport security:

Photograph from What-the-Hack.

My thoughts on airport security.

The results from the ISPC match I shot last Sunday are in.  I'll get them posted on the Lewiston Pistol Club website soon.  I came in 4th out of 10 which is in the top half.  I'm pretty pleased considering the lack of practice.  I did best in the clasifier (DVC: Vis = Power) and came in second--four Pepper Poppers and two IPSC targets at 10 (?) yards.  I shot all the steel and got all "A's" on the paper (eight shots total) in 5.37 seconds for a hit factor of 7.4488.

People and companies in Idaho do a lot of logging and mining.  That means we probably have more than our share of ecoterrorists.  I always questioned the sanity of these people operating in the forests of Idaho.  True, your chances of getting caught out in the woods a hundred miles from the nearest police station and dozens of miles from the nearest house are pretty slim.  But that also means a vigilante has little chance of getting caught.  Particularly since they have heavy earthmoving equipment on-site.  This viewpoint was reinforced recently when I heard a rumor.  Law enforcement had been spending thousands of man hours trying to catch someone.  The ecoterrorist claims he wants to kill some cops--specifically naming a couple of them that had been assigned to his case.  The ecoterrorist uses a rifle in some of his activities against the business interest. Hence the ecoterrorist has the means and intent to kill cops.  The cops are not happy with this.  If they find him and he shows even the slightest amount of aggression they will be justified in using deadly force against him.  But he is living in the woods and it's quite likely the ecoterrorist will see them coming and be able to get off the first shot or two before being seen--if he is seen at all.  Most body armor won't stop a rifle bullet.  This far from the nearest hospital a solid hunting rifle hit to an arm or leg will probably result in death.  And it would certainly cause permanent loss of function.  The cops are not at all happy about this.  The local law enforcement officer (LEO) is rumored to have had a conversation with the target of the ecoterrorist that went something like this:

LEO: If that guy disappears and there's no evidence I have to investigate it wouldn't bother me any.
TARGET: That's what we figured.  We already got the hole dug.

Note to ecoterrorists planning to operate in Idaho forests:  Get your sanity checked.

As most readers will already know the NRA has called for a boycott on ConocoPhillips regarding their filing of Federal lawsuit against a state law prohibiting companies from firing employees who keep guns in their locked cars on company property.  In many circles this creates some mixed feelings.  Shouldn't property owners (the company/stockholders/whoever) have the right to ditictate the conditions for the use of their property?  Good question.  An Yahoo groups email list I subscribe to (WA-CCW) had this posting from a lawyer which shed some new light on the topic:

From: wa-ccw@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Glenn Slate
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [wa-ccw] Has the NRA gone too far?

So here is my not so professional thought about your questions of
competing rights.  I admit it is a little unusual and unpopular right
now, but I think we all will recognize the correctness of the following
position in time.

The biggest difference here is not property rights vs. RKBA, but human
rights versus corporate rights.  Corporations are formed by the state,
they are given almost all the rights of a person, but they are not a
person.  In a competing rights situation, the corporations rights should
usually loose, as they are granted, rather than guaranteed.

A corporation is formed by an action of the state, in WA that is an act
of the Secretary of State.  WA has a state level preemption, so the
Secretary of State cannot ban CCW.  So how can the secretary of State’s
office create an entity and grant it right that the SoS office does not
itself possess?  That is to say if the Secretary is forbidden by state
law from restricting CCW in WA, how could it create a corporation and
then empower that corporation restrict CCW?

The problem with this issue becomes even more clear when you realize
that corporations need not be owned by individuals.  There is typically
no restriction on a state agency’s owning corporate stock.  So if we
allow corporation to ban CCW, couldn’t the city of Seattle for a
corporation to say  mange all it’s parks and lease the parks to that
corporation.  If they did so, could that corporation ban CCW in parks
under a private property argument?  How about to manage leased  bridges,
roads, parks, sidewalks etc.  Of course 100% of the stock would be owned
by the city, but all action would be taken by the corporation.

So the most basic (and socially disturbing) question is where did the
corporation get it’s personal property rights from?

They were granted by the state.  If the state agency could not restrict
your CCW rights, then it should not be able to grant that authority to a
corporation it formed.
Of course all this is up in the air if that state has no preemption, or
if it has a stature allowing the formation of a corporations with all
the rights of a natural person.  There will be lots of variation state
to state.

This is an entirely untested (and totally unpopular )theory, as our
culture seems to want to build corporations rather than restrict them.
  SO I strongly advice none of you to be a test case using this theory
(or any other is you can help it).

Remember I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer and this is most
definitely not legal advice.

--
Glenn Slate  |  mail to:gslate@emarket-group.com  | 503-445-8030
Corporate Counsel / Vice President of Client Development
eMarket Group, Ltd.  <http://www.emarket-group.com/>
eMerchandise <http://www.emerchandise.com/>

I was the first or second tank in the column that liberated a major concentration camp, Magdeburg.... There was a horror beyond the horror of all the dying I had seen. I learned a lesson that day. There are worse events than battle. When they come to take you off to the camp, fight. And people who tell you that you will be better off in the camps than resisting are not your friends.

Arthur T. Hadley
The Straw Giant, 1971

The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the Determination of each citizen to defend it.  Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are constitutional rights secure.

Albert Einstein

I just ran across this headline as I was scanning the news:  Leading doctor says free NHS is unsustainable.

LONDON (Reuters) - The National Health Service is unsustainable and needs to be reformed, one of the country's most senior doctors said on Saturday.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Bernie Ribeiro, the new president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said healthcare should be paid for through a social insurance system.

"If we're going to have a health care system suited to the future, we've got to be prepared to invest in it," he said. "I don't personally believe that can be done out of pure taxation."

Ribeiro suggested a means-tested system where the poorest would pay nothing at all and other patients would take out insurance to cover a proportion of their costs.

"We're not a poor country, the working population is reasonably well paid, we could afford our workers to make an identifiable contribution towards health care -- not one hidden in national insurance and taxation.

"We seriously need to look at this again."

The Labour party vowed during the May election to continue free care for all through the NHS, which it created in 1948.

Britons tend to be very protective and proud of the health service which employs 1.3 million workers and spends over 76 billion pounds a year.

But an independent report in June 2005 said the service faced serious financial problems through poor management and doctors and patients have repeatedly complained of long waiting lists and over crowding on many hospital wards.

Socialism--The Road to Serfdom (which was written in 1944 and intended for the British audience).  And socialized medicine is just one of the steps down that path.  At least a few people are getting a clue after nearly 50 years.  The question is, is it too late to reverse the slide into the abyss?

I'm spending today and tomorrow doing a bunch of work on my explosives magazine and possibly some tests on my explosives mixture.  I need to get things taken care of earlier this year.

Neal Boortz (the link www.vicioussob.com works too) has some Muslim jokes on his web site.  They are here and here.  Some are pretty good.  My favorites are:

From the Muslim standup comic Goffaq Yussef:

• How many Palestinians does it take to change a light bulb. None! They sit in the dark forever and blame the Jews for it!
• A Palestinian suspect was being grilled by Israeli police. "Honest, I'm not a suicide bomber," he said. "I didn't say I wanted to blow myself up so I could sleep with 72 virgins. All I said was I'm dying to get laid!"
• A Palestinian girl says to her mommy, "After Abdul blows up, can I have his room?"

Bumper stickers:

• If you don't like the way I drive, stay out of the World Trade Center
• Driver carries only $20 worth of C4
• My kid and YOUR money go to Gitomo Bay.
• My 12-year-old can blow up your honor student

If it ever becomes time to shoot someone, shoot early and shoot often.

Greg Hamilton
Self Defense Instructor
Nov. 19, 1995

Gun shows hold a particular appeal for the pro-gun fringe... While McVeigh and Koresh may be two of the best known gun show customers, they are other lesser known but equally discomforting attendees. According to the January 23, 1995 issue of National Review, convicted serial killer Thomas Dillon began his murderous career by killing more than 500 dogs and cats, then moved on to humans allegedly killing at least five men. In 1989 he announced to a friend that he had quit killing animals and began inviting the friend to attend gun shows with him.

From the July 1996 Violence Policy Center study Gun Shows in America:
Tupperware® Parties for Criminals.
See: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/gunshow.htm
[Bigots spouting off--Joe]

I meant to post this story the night (two days ago) it happened but I got distracted and then forgot.  I sometimes give Xenia a bad time about being a klutz, which she isn't really.  But there have been a couple of incidents with milk and then the time she walked into a support post in the grocery store that might lead one to think otherwise.  She tells the milk stories.  This last time I ended up taking a quick shower and changing all my clothes--from my socks to my shirt.  Everyone else at the table escaped every drop.

I subscribe to the Gun Guys email list and get rants about how terrible guns are on a regular basis.  Most of the time it's just pathetic, bigoted, ignorant blather.  However todays rant includes part of a recent CCRKBA news release.   Even when it's spelled out for them these clowns just don't get it:

Howdy Partners,

We told you on Tuesday about the police chiefs of Wisconsin standing up with the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort against the proposed concealed weapons bill there.  Great cops like Oregon Police Chief Doug Pettit have been telling America what most of us already know: that allowing concealed weapons on the streets is dangerous for both cops and citizens.

It's all the more disheartening, then, when out of the woodwork comes a group like the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms attempting to undercut the police chiefs' message.  In a press release on a conservative site MichNews.com, CCRKBA's executive director, Joe Waldron, tries to infer that Wisconsin's police chiefs don't know what they're talking about:

"Wisconsin residents," Waldron said, "certainly deserve to be on equal footing with armed criminals, because police can't be everywhere. Glibly arguing that only police should have guns ignores the fact that criminals prefer victims who can't fight back... Gun owners will tell you that a place where only police have guns is a police state. Wisconsin is still part of the United States."

"Police state" hyperbole aside, Waldron hints that the Wisconsin chiefs are attempting to ban guns from citizens' hands.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  What police chiefs have been saying all week, throughout Wisconsin, is that they're against concealed weapons on the streets.  The gun lobby is currently pushing for a bill to "outsource" public safety by taking the concealed weapon permit process away from law enforcement and putting it into the hands of private companies.  They want to allow concealed weapons in hospitals, places that serve alcohol, and even children's sporting events!  That's what the police chiefs in Wisconsin are urging lawmakers against.  They, like many citizens, are concerned about the safety of both police and residents, and know that concealed weapons will only make matters worse.

Instead of listening to the experience of these knowledgeable officers, however, Waldron chooses to attack their judgement and suggest that the opposite of what they're telling us is true.  Thanks, CCRKBA, but no thanks.

The worst that can be said from a scientific analysis of the data is that citizens carrying concealed weapons doesn't improve citizen safety and most studies show improvement in safety when the potential victims are allowed the tools most effective in defending themselves.  The clueless don't care about scientific data.  They are only interested in a small subset of opinions--the opinions that match their bigoted viewpoint of the world.

First off, does anyone have an email address or website for him?  I can't seem to find one. 

Second, while searching for an email address I found this speech by him.  It was from this speech I pulled todays quote.  I have often commented about anti-gun owner bigots and have praised others that use that term against the anti-freedom crowd.  Kates, in his speech, spells it out for us better than anyone else I have come across.  A sample:

... the gun control debate is not really about criminology but rather about bigotry and the effort of an influence group to force its morality on everyone by having it adopted as state and federal law. To see this it is necessary only to review some unfamiliar facts: the average gun owner is better educated and has a better job than non-owners; attitude surveys find gun owners neither racist nor sexist; liberals are only somewhat less likely than others to own firearms; liberals who do are no less willing to use them to defend their families; the only violence gun owners endorse is willingness to come to the aid of crime victims. Gun owners do not approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc. Also, good Samaritans who actually come to the aid of crime victims are twice as likely to be gun owners as the general populace.

Though these facts have been uniformly established by numerous sociological studies, they will doubtless surprise you almost as much as they would the anti-gun movement and the media. After all the former (which is actually a gun BAN movement), with the enthusiastic aid of the media, have succeeded in stereotyping gun owners as violence-oriented yahoos -- educationally, intellectually and morally retarded.

There is a word for people who inaccurately, unjustly ascribe negative characteristics to a whole group of others they dislike: that word is BIGOT.

You may not realize it but the language we use in our fight for freedom has a huge impact.  As Kevin at The Smallest Minority posted a couple days ago the mindset and world view are dependent upon the language we use.  If we let our opponents define the terms (think "assault weapons", "sniper rifles", "gun safety regulations", etc.) we will lose.  We must define ourselves and our opponents.  Our opponents are bigots.  It's demonstrably true.  Don't let them or anyone else forget it.

The gun control debate is not really about criminology but rather about bigotry.

Don Kates
Constitutional lawyer and criminologist
July 2, 1994
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Essays/Don%20Kates/Don%20Kates%20at%20Sacramento%20Rally

My son James and I have been eagerly awaiting the release of Serenity--now scheduled for September 30th.  There is a new trailer out.

In the meantime we have been watching Stargate SG-1 on DVD.  We finished up season one a couple days ago and just finished something like episode 10 on season two.  I saw Stargate in the theater years ago and wasn't all that impressed.  It just didn't deliver on the potential for some reason.  When James brought home the series I was skeptical but the first couple of episodes got things straightened out pretty good and other than the one glaring problem of everyone speaking English throughout the universe it's pretty good.  We are enjoying it.

The other night Barb and I were coming back from a walk and just as the sun was going down we saw some amazing clouds in the sky.  I called Xenia, told her to grab her camera, go outside, and look to the west.  Here is her story.  Here is one of the pictures:

I spent about 20 minutes on the phone with a newspaper reporter this morning.  He is getting background information for the PNNL story. 

There is lots of other related stuff going on as well which I can't really talk about it at this time.  I will say this though, I recently got an email from someone at PNNL who said in part, "Stay the course. There's a lot of people behind you."

If anybody is an authority on lethal car crashes it would be Ted Kennedy.

Alan Gottlieb
Second Amendment Foundation
Referring to a report from MSNBC that "more officers are being killed in traffic accidents" than by guns and Kennedy's desire for more gun control to protect the police.
http://www.saf.org/viewpr.asp?id=157

When I went to work for Microsoft, on contract, back in '95 I wrote video drivers for Direct X.  My friend Eric Engstrom did the hiring but it was for a position where I reported to Craig Eisler.  As I posted yesterday Eric just sold his most recent company, Wildseed, to AOL.  I didn't know it, but one of the people involved in the sale at AOL was--Craig Eisler.  Details here but the interesting portion to me is this:

Even before the deal, the ties between Wildseed and AOL were clear. AOL, based in Dulles, Va., recently appointed Craig Eisler to the position of AOL Wireless general manager and senior vice president.

And if you want to know even more about these characters read the book Renegades of the Empire.  It's a fascinating book, but then I was there for it and saw things from the inside looking out.  And the stories in the book that you might think were too wild be to true have actually been distorted in such a way to make them more tame than they really were.  In reality there were far more wild stories to be told such as when I reported a serious bug I had found to Craig and he kicked a hole in the wall.  Or the motorcycle peeling out in the hallway--melting a hole in the carpet.  Or the "less than legal" fireworks display on the Microsoft campus  (I had NOTHING to do with that!  This is readily determined from the fact there were no windows broken, no craters, and no mushroom shaped clouds).  Or one morning about 2:00 AM hearing, in the next hallway over, cursing, pounding, and what sounded like the tinkling of shattered glass (it was the falling keys from the keyboard Craig was pounding against desk).  Or when the "man with a gun" showed up to visit his ex-girlfriend in a different building Craig decided my office was a good place to visit--never mind that it was against the rules for anyone to have a gun on campus and there was little I could have done to protect anyone from someone with a gun.

I even have a Craig Eisler quote in my quote database:

NO!  END OF DISCUSSION!  SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!

Craig Eisler
Microsoft Software Development Lead
August 1995
(Yelling at a contract programmer who wanted to add hundreds of lines of new code to a project after a code freeze and wouldn't take "no" for an answer).

And no, I wasn't the programmer he was yelling at.

And another quote from that same era:

I would have gone postal... but I didn't have enough ammo.

Josh Baker
August 26, 1996
Explaining why he decided to take a two week vacation in Greece.

He said that in a manner which could have been taken as a joke, but it also could have been taken as something other than a joke.  I had been to the range with Josh and his shooting skills were not particularly good but they don't need to be if you are just going to be blasting away at "fish in a barrel".  About two weeks after Josh returned from vacation he was fired--I was at a state of high alert for a month or so until I knew he had found another job. 

Yes, there was a lot of stress there in those days but I thrive on stress and my first few years at Microsoft were among the happiest and most exciting of my time in corporate America.

I've often wondered about and even done some research into why the targets of the Nazi genocide didn't put up more resistance.  I forget the exact numbers and my book (I think the title is Hitlers Willing Executioners) that has it is still packed away with my other stuff from PNNL but one group of about 500 "policemen" went through Eastern Europe rounding up Jews, forcing them to dig trenches, strip, and then shooting them.  They murdered something like 16,000 Jews in six months before suffering their first two casualties.  And those were from non-Jewish Polish partisans!  What in the world was going on in the minds of the victims?  Couldn't they find any type of weapon?  Okay, access to firearms was difficult, we learned a lesson there and it won't happen here, but weren't there any axes, pitchforks, gasoline, matches, or table legs?  These thugs killed every Jew in the next town over, they were going to kill every Jew in this and the next 20 towns.  So why didn't they at least slow them down, make them find replacements, and increase the resource costs to implement their evil?  Even if the kill ratio was 1:100 thousands of lives would have been saved.

This article give the best explanation I have come across.  There was some violent resistance and the article examines what the necessary conditions were such that resistance occurred:

For a Jew caught up in the Holocaust, there were many factors to consider when deciding on a course of action. For an individual considering armed, violent resistance, these included:

• Concern for family members and dependants: all those close to a fighter would be put at risk by his (or her) actions.
• Access to arms­: how is one to fight the Germans? Some sort of weapon is necessary, and would have to be acquired.
• Hope for an easy solution: many believed that their situation would be resolved by itself, and thus to risks one’s life fighting was needless.
• Respected leadership: ­from both a practical and psychological view, fighting back required leaders to organize and encourage individuals.
• Motivation: be it survival, revenge, or informing the world of the Nazi actions, a goal was essential for a would-be fighter.

By investigating the relative importance of these factors in several instances of armed Jewish resistance, it should become clearer what was required for the average victim to resort to violence.

The article does a good job of briefly exploring these factors and gives examples of Jewish resistance I was previoiusly unaware of (one example I was aware of isn't mentioned but the conditions there were somewhat unique).

Another factor, which a reader emailed me years ago and I can't find right now, was that the mindset of people in Germany and Europe in general is much different than that in American and extremely different from that of the gun owners here.  "Authority" was (and probably still is) respected far, far more there than it is here.  If someone in a uniform, carrying a gun or not, gives you an order then you obey.  The concept of an illegal order was out of intellectual and cultural reach.

The article concludes with content which, to me, seems incomprehensible that it needs to be said.  But for someone with a totally alien mindset from mine I suppose it needs to be articulated:

The Holocaust provides several compelling examples of such salvation through violence. The death camp of Belzec operated without significant hindrance until it was closed for a lack of victims to burn after engulfing an estimated 600,000 victims.  After its final trainload of deportees was gassed and cremated, the Jewish staff laborers were shot dead.  To this day, only a handful of prisoners are known to have escaped Belzec alive. One significant difference between Belzec and its sister death camp, Treblinka, is that the killing at Treblinka ceased long before it ran out of victims. The prisoners of Treblinka rose up with arms and were able to escape and burn most of the camp to the ground. Not only were several score of prisoners able to survive to fight on as partisans and bear witness of their tribulations, but they ended the murders at Treblinka. The camp was never rebuilt in the wake of their revolt. The same is true for the extermination camp of Sobibor after the prisoners broke out of the camp, it was shut down. The revolts of the prisoners in both camps were the direct cause of their closure. It is clear that without these rebellions, Jews, Gypsies, and other German "undesirables" would have continued to be executed for weeks to come in these places.

...

A final, and oft overlooked outcome of the revolts was the reclamation of simple human dignity by the fighters. The individuals incarcerated in the camps of the German extermination system died deliberately starved, beaten, helpless and dehumanized. They were subjected to the most brutal of tortures and the most degrading of conditions. No human being deserves to die in such a state. To fight back gave them the opportunity to have a hand in their fate; it gave them back the dignity that is the essence of being human.

See also my posting "Why Boomershoot?"

This is the second posting with a Jewish theme in as many days.  Some of it is coincidence but also I'm reading Harry Turtledove's book In the Presence of Mine Enemies.  This is an alternate history where the Nazis won WW II and exterminated all but a few Jews who are "hiding" in plain sight.  The book is a bit slow and there are too many bridge games but because this has been a long term topic of interest for me I am enjoying the book.

Yeah.  I know.  My blog and nearly all my websites went down a little after 7:00 PDT.  It was the connection my ISP has with Sprint.  I'm on the same side of the break as my websites so I can update as desired but only about half the people in Moscow Idaho can view them.  Heavy sigh... at least my income (my wife just went off to her second day of work at her new job) isn't dependent on having connectivity like some people.

Update: From my ISP:

9:42 update.  A fiber optic cable is cut between here and Potlatch. 

We came back online about 11:15.

A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight.

Henry David Thoreau
(1817-62), U.S. philosopher, author, naturalist.
On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849).

I didn't know this, in part because I'm oblivious to many things like this, but the NRA President is Jewish.  No, I'm not so oblivious to have not noticed that she is also a woman.

The picture below was taken from the sidewalk across the street from my house a few minutes ago.  That cloud is smoke from a fire about 50 miles away.

Click on the picture for a higher resolution version.

This fire made the news:

• In the UK
• In Japan
• USA Today
• Walla Walla Union-Bulletin
• Disater News Network
• LA Times
• Many others

As near as I can determine people who desire restrictions on firearms have zero connectivity with reality.  They haven't looked at the history of gun control to determine what happens in the real world.  This determination is the basis for my Just One Question--which no one has ever attempted to answer.  In addition to the safety and security issues which are my main concerns there are the enforceability, corruption, and abuse of power issues.  The current situation in South Africa is just the latest example of what happens when you allow the government to attempt implementing "common sense" restrictions:

The Black Gun Owners' Association says it is preparing to sue the Minister of Safety and Security, Charles Nqakula, on behalf of thousands of prospective gun owners who have paid fees in advance to comply with new firearm licence legislation, only to have their applications and requests for refunds refused by the South African Police Service.

...

To comply with legislation, applicants paid up to R1 500 for training courses, safes and competency certificates, only to have their applications denied.

"Everything has been planned for people not to obtain licences. The government has made a big blunder. The minister (Nqakula) said he does not want illegal firearms, so why is he refusing people legal firearms?

"The new law is encouraging people to support illegal firearms. In South Africa, firearms are readily available and some of the people selling illegal firearms are police (disposing of) amnesty firearms," he said.

...

Durban Guns and Ammo owner Justin Willmers said more than 1 000 applications submitted via his shop, after waiting two years to be processed, had been refused on appeal.

He said applicants had received identical response letters saying they had not given a "substantial reason" as to why they could not use alternative means of protection.

"Since July 1 last year, I have not sold one gun," Willmers said. He said when customers realised the lengthy processes involved in obtaining a firearm legally, they simply turned to the black market.

...

Suter claimed the police had neither the capacity nor the expertise to administer licence renewals from the country's roughly 2,5-million gun owners. And with three and a half years left to renew 4,5-million firearm licences, at the current pace of work, it would take 26 875 years, he said.

"This is a day in America when the little guy lost out to powerful special interests."

– Michael Barnes, President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence

That is the lead to this article by Howard Nemerov.  You know Barnes is full of crap just from his association with the Brady bunch.  But I didn't know the other details outlined in that great article.  Nemeroy also says this about Barnes:

He is a Washington insider, having been a congressman from 1979-1987. He is a lawyer who has an association with the law firm of Hogan & Hartson.

He thens goes on to tell how much money lawyers have been donating to our politicians and how those politicians are a "Who's Who" of those that voted against the bill to outlaw frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufactures.

If you like well documented, hard facts kind of reading go read the rest of it.

A bit of a side note--I haven't crowed about this bill passing the Senate for various reasons.  Stephanie sent me this link which articulates some of the reasons not to be overjoyed about passage of this law.  I agree with everything in the article but if I were to vote on the bill I probably "hold my nose" and vote "Yes".  The reality is the Federal government exercises way more power than it was granted by the Constitution.  But failure to exercise that power for good does not lessen the evils that excess of power brings.  That excess of power must be reduced in a manner which reduces evil as much or more than the good that can be done with that power.  Failure to accept this good does not accomplish that.

I say not "give me liberty or give me death". I say I am born free and he who would deny me freedom risks his own death.

Mack Tanner
http://www.buildfreedom.com/tanner/born_free.shtml

When they took the fourth amendment,
I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.

When they took the sixth amendment,
I was quiet because I was innocent.

When they took the second amendment,
I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.

Now they've taken the first amendment,
and I can say nothing about it.

yento@scn.org

An armed republic submits less easily to the rule of one of its citizens than a republic armed by foreign forces. Rome and Sparta were for many centuries well-armed and free. The Swiss are well-armed and enjoy great freedom. Among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible. It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants.

Machiavelli
The Prince; Chapter 17

I've been watching the log for my PNNL info site and noticed there were a fair number of referrals coming in from search engines.  I did my own searches and came up with interesting results:

• Google for PNNL: my site comes in at number seven.
• MSN Search for PNNL: my site comes in at number five.
• MSN Search for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: my site comes in at number three.

The other search engines appear to be a little behind but they don't matter nearly as much.

Thanks to everyone for linking to the site as per my suggestions on this page.  That helped make the above happen.

I'm in the process of making some more changes that should boost the visibility even more.  And since I've been seeing the Google bot traverse the website recently that can only be good news.

Barb and I made it back home tonight and as I was going through my piles of email I found this gem from Alan Korwin, author of numerous books on gun laws:

18 USC 241. If two or more people conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured under the Constitution or laws of the United States, they shall be fined, or imprisoned up to ten years, or both.

I wonder... Does firing someone from their job meet the legal definition of "injure" or "oppress"?  I'm not sure--but you can be certain I will be finding out soon.

You can't shoot somebody just because they are a scumbag.  They have to have the ability, opportunity, and have put an innocent person in imminent jeopardy of life or serious bodily harm.  If you are looking to just shoot somebody go to some other country and buy a tag.

Greg Hamilton
Self Defense Instructor
Nov. 19, 1995

And Miss (Attorney General Janet) Reno, I say to you: If you send your jackbooted, baby-burning bushwackers to confiscate my guns, pack them a lunch.  It will be a damned long day.  The Branch Davidians were amateurs.  

I'm a professional.

Harry Thomas
NRA Board Member