The View From North Central Idaho

We’ve been through the Republican Revolution once already, and I don’t know if liberty could afford another.

Sebastian
June 30, 2009
Taming the Beast
[This is not to say the Democrats are any better at defending liberty. Just that the Republican party is not who you want to "take point" in the fight to restore it.--Joe]

I'm just wondering aloud here.  When will we decide that women are regular citizens, instead of treating female shooters as though they are a separate class of citizen?  I understand that there is a perception that women need their own, separate training classes and all that, so they feel comfortable.  Is that condescending to women or am I missing something?  At what point, or under what circumstances, will we be treating female shooters the same as we treat male shooters (within the sport I mean)?

Maybe it's a dumb question.  Maybe men can't help but see a woman as something special and maybe that attitude is bound to find its way into our chosen sport.  Maybe some women are so accustomed to being treated differently that they expect it without a lot of thought.

Maybe the question is simply premature.  Any female shooters want to comment on that?  Do you believe you need separate training or separate categories in a competition, and if so, why?  Should there be guns made for girls, and others for the boys and if so, why"  Marketing strategies are beyond the scope of the question.  Hell, maybe it's all about marketing, in which case, never mind.

I could understand if shooting involved some heavy lifting, but even then we've all seen some women who can out-lift some men.  So you want different weight classes, like in wrestling?

Here's another.  How long is it going to be before the various races of humans are treated the same in general, in the media, and in the courts?  I understand personal preferences, but that's quite different.  I'm talking socially, politically and legally.  When will I be able to tell a black guy he's being a fool without being accused of racism, or tell a Mexican woman she's wrong without her getting in my face on some racial or sex-related tangent?  When will we be able to disagree without changing the subject as a form of crutch?  I really am getting sick and damned tired of this, so I am herein putting my foot down.  Knock off the race and sex defenses.  Some people are using it as a tool and I'm not buying it.  Not at all, and I'm getting right back in your face if you try it with me so don't even start.

When, or under what exact specified circumstances, will the gun-restriction advocates declare their work done, pack up their tents, and get jobs?  Any time you hear one of them guffaw over the assertion that they won't quit until all guns are banned, your immediate response must be, "OK, then tell me precisely when or under what circumstances you will stop, declare victory, and find something else to do, 'cause what I see is that any time you get a win, you're right on to calling for another restriction.  This has been happening for over 70 years, so, you know, we have a pretty undeniable track record here.  Go ahead.  Lay out the circumstances.  I have all day."

Staying on the title subject;
A problem with saying, "this far and no farther" is you've already established that a) you're willing to give ground, and/or that b) you've accepted or granted your opponent's basic premise(s).  Some things are properly subject to compromise (such as where to go for lunch, assuming you want the company) and others are not (such as basic rights).  When it comes to basic rights, the response it not, "this far and no farther".  Properly, the response is zero tolerance, same as it would be for a robber or a rapist.  If someone violates your basic rights, they are criminal and it is not incumbent upon you to prove your magnanimity by compromising with them.  You fight to win, then you fight for compensation and restitution, then you fight for justice, assuming your opponent is still breathing.  Few if any in Congress, for example, seem to have a clue how that might happen with regard to their violations of our basic rights.

It was ineffective. That is, homicide didn't go down as was promised following the law's implementation.

...

Good guys have good effects with guns, bad guys have bad effects with guns.

Gary Kleck
June 29, 2009
Florida State University Criminology Professor
Some wonder if tighter gun control helps
[And I have yet to see a law passed, or even proposed, that didn't create more of a impediment to gun ownership on the good guys than it did the bad guys. Hence, my Just One Question.--Joe]

On this one-year anniversary of the landmark Heller ruling, it is sadly clear that gun prohibitionists are as determined as ever to re-write history and live in denial. Of course, what they really want is to deny gun owners their civil rights.

To paraphrase Barack Obama, these gun prohibitionists have become bitter, clinging to their gun control agenda as if it were a religion.

Dave Workman
June 25, 2009
The Heller ruling one year later; antis still in denial
[Just as many whites clung to their bigoted beliefs about blacks for 100 year after the 13^th Amendment was passed it's going to take a long, long time before the anti-gun bigots are driven into the fringe politics along with the KKK. It should not be a surprise that the bigots of today overwhelmingly are Democrats, just as they were in the heydays of the KKK. Apparently they just can't help it and have to hate someone.--Joe]

The number of firearm owners who fail to renew their gun licences has steadily increased since the Harper government tabled legislation to scrap the federal long-gun registry.

Opposition critics and the Coalition for Gun Control in Canada say the problem has increased risk for frontline police officers and undermines public safety.

Despite an amnesty the Conservatives introduced to coax gun owners into licence renewals, the latest RCMP figures show the opposite occurred.

The rate of non-renewals climbed to 25.3 per cent of expired licences in the first three months of this year, compared with 14.1 per cent in 2005.

...

A little-noticed RCMP report for 2007 on the Canada Firearms Centre contains positive information about the registry and its use by police that could surprise even diehard opponents.

The report includes a groundbreaking RCMP survey that found general duty police officers use the online version of the registry at a high rate to check for potential weapons while responding to trouble calls.

On average, 73 per cent of the officers said they log on to check for the presence of firearms en route.

The rate was even higher for officers trained to use the online registry - 81 per cent of that group use it on calls.

Tim Naumetz
June 27, 2009
Declining gun-licence renewals a risk to police: observers
[Would the same concern on the lack of renewals be expressed if instead of gun owners it were Jews, blacks, and gays being registered?--Joe]

It is estimated that 60 million pieces of weapons are in the hands of Yemenis, which indicates that on average, each Yemeni carries three pieces of weapons.

Yemen Times
October 2002
Sept. 29 fatal firefight near British Embassy Gun battle 'normal accident'
[Remember this the next time someone says the U.S. has the most heavily armed private citizens.--Joe]

I think the Russians are catching on to this capitalism thing:

Pirate Hunting Cruises Being Offered in Russia

Pirate hunting cruises along the African coast are being offered by private yachts in Russia. For £3,500 per day customers can sail along the coast of Somalia at low speed to entice a pirate into attacking.

Former special forces troops are on board to make sure no harm comes to the wealthy punters. If a pirate does take the bait, they are met with machine gun, rocket, and grenade fire. For an extra fee, customers can hire an AK-47 and join in.

[Via an email from son-in-law Caleb.]

After the long nightmare of Microsoft health insurance, to finally be delivered into the arms of the kind and loving bureaucrats who give their all to ensure America's veterans never want for care...

Sean Flynn
2:59 PM PDT, June 25, 2008
Microsoft employee commenting on the Obama administration's efforts to "reform" (nationalize) health care.

When a bullet passes through air, it creates a high pressure area in front of, and around it, and creates a slight increase in temperature as the bullet impacts the molecules in the air. The pressure and temperature difference creates enough of a disturbance to bend light slightly. The result is a what appears to be a wavy donut that enters the bottom of your field of view, arcs upward above the target, and drops down into the target. (I call it a "wavy donut," JD calls it the "undulating donut of death." I like his better.)

Seeing this phenomenon with my own eye was really amazing. I knew how rifles worked, I knew the physics involved, I knew the trajectory was parabolic, and I've seen many charts of bullet flight path; but it's still hard for your brain to wrap around the idea of a tiny thing flying through the air at 2800 feet per second. Actually seeing it happen seemed to dispel the magic the non-logical part of my brain was convinced was involved. Squeezing a trigger here, didn't just make something happen there; it began a very simple set of physical principals that ended in a predictable manner that I could view with my eye.

Plus, it was wicked cool.

ErnestThing
May 11, 2009
Boomershoot 2009
[Yup. It's wicked cool alright.

On the longer shots you can see the bullet arc up above the target and the wind push it off to the side. Then, if you called the range and wind doping right you are rewarded with seeing that wavy donut drop into a little white box on the hillside and transform it into a red flash and a cloud of water vapor 20 feet tall. You and your partners are in the middle of whoops of joy when the boom hits you. The boom is a deep earth shaking sound that video cameras and sound equipment somehow cannot adequately capture with enough fidelity to duplicate the thump to your chest you feel when you are there live.

There are still two positions available at Boomershoot 2010. They are positions #2 and #4. Even though they are in the ".50 Caliber Ghetto" smaller caliber shooters may use them with the restriction that the tree line targets are not available. Sign up here.--Joe]

No wonder they can't answer Just One Question! The laws weren't intended to "regulate for health and safety". Kurt explains.

If the regulations were to "regulate for health and safety" Sebastian explains what that would be like.

I would like to point that it seems to me that the VPC is over stating things just a bit with this claim:

President Obama's signing of a bill granting the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory authority over the tobacco industry now leaves the gun industry as the last American industry not regulated for health and safety.

Let me repeat. Guns are now the only consumer product manufactured in America not regulated by a federal agency for health and safety.

Could someone explain to me what federal agency regulates the following consumer products for health and safety:

• Software
• Buckets
• Jewelry
• Swimming pools
• Websites
• Books
• Music
• Entertainment
• Prostitution (legal in parts of Nevada and the Feds once owned a brothel confisicated for failure to pay taxes but the Feds couldn't even make money running a whorehouse and they went out of business)
• Locks and keys
• Hand tools
• Cardboard boxes

Also note that the number of accident deaths due to gunshot wounds are at, or near, an all time low in the neighborhood of less than 700 per year (642 in 2006--See table 18).

Finally I would also like to point out that there is a private model for health and safety approval that appears to work quite well for electrical applicances. It's call the Underwriters Laboratory.

Hence, Federal regulations are not needed because; 1) there isn't a problem that needs to be fixed, and 2) There are private solutions that would work better if there were a problem.

A new book written by anti-gun bigot Dennis Henigan has just been announced. He calls it Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy. If I could borrow a copy rather than have my money go toward his furthering of discrimination against gun owners I'd take the time to read it. I'd love to take it apart in public for him. But since I don't have a copy in hand right now I'll just do what I can with what I presume are his best shots as given in the press release:

In Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy, published by Potomac Books, Henigan takes on the highly memorable, but completely unsupportable slogans that for decades have been the staple of the National Rifle Association and other relentless opponents of sensible gun laws, and dismantles them one by one. Lethal Logic also is the first book to assess the impact on the gun control debate of last year's Heller decision by the Supreme Court and the book's conclusions about Heller will surprise many on both sides of the issue.

...

Some of Henigan's observations on the gun lobby's "bumper sticker" slogans:

• "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Henigan counters with Ozzy Osbourne's take on that: "If that's the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?"
• "But what you really want [is to ban all guns.]" Henigan explains that for the gun lobby, "the gun debate needs to be a debate about banning all guns. The slippery slope argument is the NRA's primary means of achieving this goal."
• "An armed society is a polite society." The more guns, the safer we all are, the gun extremists say - and they cite Switzerland as Utopia. But Henigan points out that Switzerland has high gun ownership because of mandatory militia service, and that citizens in mandatory militia service face government inspection of the guns in their homes and must account for all their bullets. "Can you imagine the fury of the NRA's opposition to any suggestion that guns in the homes of U.S. citizens be subject to government inspection?"

As to "If that's the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?" Try sending the guns without the people and see how well the war goes. It's the people that make the difference.

Try this experiment (okay, do the thought experiment if you don't think you can get the human subjects testing approval):

Suppose you were to drop Dennis Henigan and Sarah Brady in the woods with all the guns and ammo they can carry. And a half mile away you drop in an Army Ranger or Navy Seal completely naked, one hand tied behind their back and a patch over one eye. If you tell them only one side can leave the woods alive I'm betting that by the next morning, despited being outnumbered 2:1 and out armed, the warrior will be walking out of the woods fully clothed, armed, and wearing Sarah and Dennis's ears as a necklace.

Gun are tools used by people. Without the people the guns don't kill, with or without guns people can kill. Guns just make violence against people easier. Sometimes that violence is for good and sometimes it is for evil. Most of the time guns are used for good. Reducing the access of guns to good people enables evil.

As to "But what you really want [is to ban all guns.] ... the gun debate needs to be a debate about banning all guns." No, the debate doesn't have to be about that. Why not answer Just One Question? Justify the existence of any legal restriction on guns with data that conclusively demonstrates the restriction improved public safety. Or if that is something Henigan wants to avoid then explain why a "reasonable restriction" against gun owners wouldn't be just as constitutionally repugnant as a similar restriction against black slaves who had been freed by the 13^th Amendment.

As to government inspection of guns and accounting for all the bullets in the homes of the Swiss Henigan has to heavily distort the truth to make his point.

Here is the part where what Henigan says is mostly true:

Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel or the SIG 510 rifle and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.^[2]

Here is what Henigan completely ignores in order to make his point:

The government subsidizes the production of military ammunition and then sells the ammunition at cost. Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range. Registration consists of entering your name in a log at the time of sale. No serial numbers are present on the individual cartridges of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but according to David Kopel "the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed."^[2] Ammunition for long gun hunting is not subsidized by the government and is not subject to any sales control. Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as custom handgun ammunition) is registered at the time of sale.^[10]

The article goes on to say:

Purchases from dealers of hunting long guns and of small bore rifles are not even recorded by the dealer. In other words, the dealer would not record the sale of a .30-06 hunting rifle, but would record the sale of a .30-06 M1 Garand rifle.^[2] According to chapter 2 article 10 of Swiss law, people over the age of 18 do not need a permit to purchase a rifle for use in hunting, off-duty shooting and sport-shooting events.^[10]

So why is it that Henigan didn't tell us the rest of the story? That's right, the facts hurt his case. He can't make his points without cherry picking the data.

If those are the best shots Dennis could come up with the rest must be so poor as to be the equivalent of not getting his shotgun to get on paper with an USPSA target at five feet. Which of course means he must be shooting blanks.

Next they’ll be coming for our pitchforks. Oh well, let’s hope they bring cake.

Wat Tyler
June 17, 2009
Comment to Pocket knives now in feds' gunsights
H/T to Sebastian.
[For some reason I found this terribly amusing.--Joe]

Via a Bitter Twitter (or should that be Bitter Tweet?) I found this:

The federal government is spending $423,500 to find out why men don't like to wear condoms, a project government watchdogs say is a nearly-half-a-million-dollar waste of taxpayer money.

...

But the $423,500 grant for the study is just a crumb in the NIH pie. The NIH spends $29 billion each year to help fund thousands of health studies at home and abroad.

But some questionable queries have come under close scrutiny, including a $400,000 study being conducted in bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk; a $2.6 million study dedicated to teaching prostitutes in China to drink less while having sex on the job; and a $178,000 study to better understand why drug-abusing prostitutes in Thailand are at greater risk for HIV infection.

I presume this is part of Obama's stimulus package. If you were to ask me I would say we should stop stimulating him.

I'm in the process of moving to another hidden underground hardened bunker. My old one was compromised due to multiple contacts with the police through no fault of my own.

Well...that's not the only version of the story. It's also true that the rents have been dropping in the area and I can get an underground bunker for only slightly more money than I'm currently paying and is walking distance from my work instead of a 20 minute (assuming no traffic--yeah, right!) drive.

Until the move is complete and I'm all settled in blogging will be a little lighter than normal. I expect to be done by next Monday.

Funny how regressives are all about due process and rights so long as it's for the right people. The Klan is just as progressive, they just hate a different subset of the populace.

Robb Allen
June 22, 2009
Secret lists cannot stop firearm purchases
[Ahhh.... It's so nice to have "my" meme being adapted, propagated, and utilized so smoothly. Thank you Robb.--Joe]

Partially because I'm concerned they will soon be difficult to get and partially because some of the women in my life have lost or misplaced the knife I gave them earlier after putting them through knife school I purchase several Spyderco Delicas a few minutes ago. I ordered them from The Blade Shop who seemed to have the best price ($45 when the MSRP is $90) in the quick search I did. Free shipping on orders over $125.

As pointed out in a comment by fishyjay:

Herbert concludes his column with this:

" The first step should be to bring additional gun control back into the policy mix."

So the NRA has been lying about the Obama administration wanting more gun control, and the Obama administration should respond by pushing for...more gun control?

You can't make this stuff up.

Sometimes you just have to conclude the anti-gun people have mental problems and/or they have crap for brains.

A sample letter from Gay Cynic.

Background:

• Obama's Quiet War on Knives
• Obama's War on Knives
• It depends on what your definition of 'or' is
• Pocket knives now in feds’ gunsights

To those of you who told me you would write if given the information, see the link to Gay Cynic's letter.

The officer displayed a paper describing a Luger pistol, a relic of the Great War, and ordered the father to produce it. That old gun had been lost, stolen, or misplaced sometime after it had been registered, the father explained. He did not know where it was.

The officer told the father that he had exactly fifteen minutes to produce the weapon. The family turned their home upside down. No pistol. They returned to the SS officer empty-handed.

The officer gave an order and soldiers herded the family outside while other troops called the entire town out into the square. There on the town square the SS machine-gunned the entire family-father, mother, Charley's two friends, their older brother and a baby sister.

I will never forget the moment. We were sitting on the bunk on a Saturday afternoon and Charley was crying, huge tears rolling down his cheeks, making silver dollar size splotches on the dusty barracks floor. That was my conversion from a casual gun owner to one who was determined to prevent such a thing from ever happening in America.

Neal Knox
The Belgian Corporal, prologue to Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War
[I'm proud to have met and talked to Neal Knox on two occasions. He did amazing things for the gun rights movement. He is one of my heros.

Give very careful consideration to a demand to register your guns.

My conversion to gun owner and civil rights activist was Ruby Ridge.--Joe]

The ACLU has filed suit against the TSA claiming they are:

...subjecting innocent Americans to unreasonable searches and detentions that violate the Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed the complaint on behalf of a traveler who was illegally detained and harassed by TSA agents at the airport for carrying approximately $4,700 in cash.

The way I see it any search by the government without a warrant is unreasonable. When it was the FAA requiring the airlines to do the searches it was questionable at best. But as soon as it was a government entity doing the searches it was way over the line.

What the TSA is doing isn't nearly enough but it's far better to get a small win that a big loose in the courts and for their efforts in trying to make that happen I applaud them.

Unfortunately, I'm not King of the United States and able to send the TSA clowns to the dungeon for their costly Security Theater at tax payer expense.

From here:

I still haven't done all the economics reseach I keep meaning to do so I'll just dump a few quotes from the source and let someone else interpret the data:

To say this situation is unprecedented does not do justice to the word.

Hyperinflation, or even strong inflation predictions in the near term look rather silly in the face of this data unless one is only looking at the printing and not the destruction in credit.

...

Think consumers are about to go on a spending spree after a massive $13.87 trillion collapse in net worth? Think banks are going to start lending with this employment picture and household debt? I don't and boomer demographics makes the situation even worse. Don't forget the bleak employment picture. There is no source of jobs.

Those who get hyperinflation out of this picture must be reading the playbook in Bizarro World because it sure is not the playbook here.

Sleep well.

Via an IM from son James I found out that some cities are excising dead tissue before it becomes gangrenous:

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

...

Flint's recovery efforts have been helped by a new state law passed a few years ago which allowed local governments to buy up empty properties very cheaply.

They could then knock them down or sell them on to owners who will occupy them. The city wants to specialise in health and education services, both areas which cannot easily be relocated abroad.

The local authority has restored the city's attractive but formerly deserted centre but has pulled down 1,100 abandoned homes in outlying areas.

Mr Kildee estimated another 3,000 needed to be demolished, although the city boundaries will remain the same.

Thousands of homes. Wow. That would be quite a ghost town.

Although it seems a little odd in our time it wasn't all the uncommon, at least in the western United States, for towns to spring up around mines, flourish for many years then be abandoned. For it to happen around some other industry in another age shouldn't be all the surprising I guess.

Advice from the NRA, when the jack-booted thugs ask for the serial numbers of your guns, just say no:

On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics.  One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to "report" an NRA member as "refusing to cooperate."  That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional. 

Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply.  Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice.  Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents' consent.  There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.

From an opinion piece:

Still, it’s hard to argue that the easy availability of handguns and assault weapons is good for crime prevention or what the Founding Fathers had in mind in the Second Amendment.

Yes, they are right on the first point. It is hard to argue "easy availability of handguns and assault weapons is good for crime prevention". If it were easy then people wouldn't have so much trouble answering Just One Question. But I don't think that is what they meant.

But on the second point, "shall not be infringed" obviously means availability cannot be restricted by the government.

As usual, the gun banners have trouble thinking straight. He apparently believes words mean what he wants them to mean rather than what they actually say.

At times the only way I can make sense of some of the things the anti-gun people say is if they are of the belief there is no such thing as personal property:

Although police will run serial-number checks on all firearms submitted, they will not hold residents legally responsible for the guns they return.

All guns will be destroyed and not kept for resale, said O’Keefe, who had his own gun stolen during a burglary in 2006.

"The guns they return"? Do they think the guns were on loan from the police?

And what does "not kept for resale" mean? Does that mean something different from "not resold"? It almost seems like they might mean "reloaned" but didn't want to come right out and say that.

I have to conclude these people frequently have mental problems.

I wonder what caused someone to do this search:

Domain Name		usbr.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		140.214.41.# (Department of Interior)
ISP		Department of Interior
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  California City  :  Shasta Lake Lat/Long  :  40.6893, -122.3768 (Map) Distance  :  495 miles
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; InfoPath.1)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1680 x 1050 Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit		Jun 19 2009 11:00:01 pm
Last Page View		Jun 19 2009 11:00:01 pm
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.bing.com/...danger&go=&form=QBRE
Search Engine		bing.com
Search Words		tannerite fire danger
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffm...ory,Boomershoot.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffm...ory,Boomershoot.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time		Jun 19 2009 11:00:01 pm
Visit Number		531,582

The Department of Interior did a search at 2300 on a Friday night for "tannerite fire danger". Tannerite, as most of you know, is a binary explosive used for reactive targets. It is frequently assumed that Boomershoot uses Tannerite. This is not true. We use Boomerite.

Nearly every year we have one or more fires associated with Boomershoot we have to put out. Most of the time it is because we are doing fireball targets. Sometimes it has been because a tracer caused a fire. But sometimes it was because our reactive target either caught fire instead of detonating after being shot or because the explosives spontaneously combusted. One of the ingredients in Boomerite is potassium chlorate. Potassium chlorate is one of the main ingredients in matches. It is believed it is the potassium chlorate that causes Boomerite to spontaneously combust. Tannerite (the last time I checked) does not use potassium chlorate although it does share ammonium nitrate with Boomerite. I suspect Tannerite is less likely to cause a fire than Boomerite but any time you are working with highly exothermic materials the risk of a fire or explosion is present.

If you use highly exothermic materials in association with your gun fun please be careful with it. Be prepared to put out a fire. If you spill some of the materials then dispose of it by soaking the area in water or dispersing and burying the chemicals.

We don't want the Department of Interior or anyone else banning the use of Tannerite on their land.

Checker asked about my Boomershoot shirt, then asked how far I think I could shoot. Maybe answering in kilometers was a bad idea.

thumper242
Via Twitter, June 19, 2009
[thumper242 has attended many Boomershoots and has been a valued staff member for many years now. BTW, he uses a .300 Win Mag shooting Black Hills Match ammo.--Joe]

Ry (and here) and Say Uncle reported on the U.S. Army ordering 38.4 million rounds of .300 Winchester magnum ammo for their newly modified M-24 sniper rifles.

I think quite highly of the .300 Win Mag as a long range precision rifle cartridge. That is what my Spud Gun is chambered in. I have been very, very pleased with the results I get with it. I also find it interesting the link Ry supplied to the development history reports the Federal Match primers are used in the new ammo--which is what I use when reloading for my Spud Gun. They are using a 220 grain Sierra Match King bullet however. They considered and rejected the 210 grain VLD bullet which is what I use for reloading. The moly coated 190 grain Sierra Match King is used in the Black Hills match ammo I sometimes buy which also works very well for me. I prefer the 210 VLD over the 190 SMK because I get a little less wind drift and I should be good for 1500 yard shots versus 1300 yards for the 190 SMK (at sea level, 59F).

I'm glad I have enough ammo to last me until (I hope) the Army contracts are fulfilled.

A few minutes ago I sent the following out to the Boomershoot Announcement list:

I opened up Boomershoot 2010 for 2009 participants yesterday to give them 24 hours prior to the general public to reserve their favorite positions. As of this minute 92% of the positions are taken. There are only six positions left. Sorry about that.

First come, first serve for the remainder:

http://entry.boomershoot.org/

I am sure there will be cancellations and positions will become available throughout the year so don’t get too bummed if you don’t get a position today or tomorrow when I expect the last of the positions will disappear.

Joe Huffman
Boomershoot Event Director

I was a bit concerned that with the economy and ammo price/shortages I wouldn't get as many people signing up this year. I was wrong. 92% full within a few tens of hours after opening it up for registration--over 10 months in advance.

Update (50 minutes later): The event is 96% full with only three positions still open.

It’s impossible to list every single gun protected by the Second Amendment. We won’t stop until this list is scrapped.

Alan Gura
June 17, 2009
SAF LAWSUIT FORCES CHANGE IN D.C. GUN REGULATIONS
[The bigots in Washington D.C. were banning guns not on California's list of approved guns--which in some cases banned guns on the bases of being the wrong color. They dropped the California list but still require the guns to be on the lists maintained by Maryland and Massachusetts.

Just as I predicted, "They will scream and yell, and refuse to obey the law of the land as long as they can. It will be little different than when blacks were declared equal citizens and they were still stopped for driving while black, jailed, beaten, and even convicted in kangaroo courts on phony charges." And (here), "The anti-gun people are bigots just like those that promoted the Jim Crow laws against blacks." It's going to take many battles and a long time before the bigots finally learn their place--in the dustbin of history.--Joe]

Xenia has more wedding photos up. These are from the professional photographer.

Population pre-event, fifteen million. Population post-event, ten million and dropping. Four Operatives. My share of the initial casualty count was one million, two hundred and fifty fucking thousand people. The number was meaningless except as a strategic calculation and a sick, horrible comment percolated thorough my thoughts.

I. Am. A. Weapon. Of. Mass. Destruction.

Kenneth Chinran
A character in the book The Weapon, Page 440.
By Michael Z. Williamson
[A few days after I made this post on April 1 2008 Freehold and The Weapon showed up on my desk at work courtesy of Tony. As Jim said, "Joe, if you haven't read Freehold and The Weapon by Michael Z. Williamson you really ought to, they describe your 'April Fools' scenario almost to a T."

I don't have much time for reading dead tree stuff but I put these books on the top of my stack. I finished Freehold in about three or four months and I currently have only a handful of pages left on The Weapon. They are very good books. Had I decided to take the time they would have been the type of book I would have read straight through stopping only to tell Barb to leave me alone--I really didn't need to eat or sleep yet.

Being an engineer I would have liked more detail on some things. But being a good engineer I can figure out the details for myself should I have the need.

Sleep well.--Joe]

Bob does some back of the envelope calculations to see if the Gary Klecks numbers seem reasonable. They seem reasonable to me.

That's a pretty good gun control joke. It doesn't matter which side of the issue you are on, it's still funny.

I went to the doctor for a minor procedure yesterday. I just had my physical last Thursday and for some stupid reason I didn't think I would be asked for my weight and other vitals again. Wrong.

I was carrying my usual self-defense tools, utility tools, and a double handful of keys (how can this be? Yet, I can go through them one by one and claim a need for all of them) rather than putting them in a fanny pack I could dump quickly while on the scales. I told the nurse she didn't want my weight. It would be about 15 pounds more than last week. "17", she corrected.

Then she wanted my blood pressure. I was wearing a unbuttoned light-weight denim shirt over a t-shirt with my STI Eagle 5.1 (link is to the very similar 5.1) with a spare 18 round magazine on the off side in between. She had some trouble getting the cuff to go over my arm and shirt so I took the denim shirt off and tried to drop it part way down in such a way that it still covered my gun. It went all the way to the exam table and left my gun fully exposed in the Kramer IWB #2 holster. The nurse had to see it. She was working with the cuff just a few inches from the gun but she didn't comment or stare. She did her business with the vitals and other stuff then left saying the doctor would be in shortly.

After many minutes the doctor was still not there and I became concerned. I thought maybe they were waiting for the police to arrive or something. The doctor has a bit of an accent and I wasn't sure where it was from. I thought she might be from England and I worried she would refuse to see me. Bitter tried to reassure me but I wasn't all that reassured. After a few more minutes she came in and there was no indication of concern about the gun on my hip. Whew!

As she prepped for the procedure she made small talk and I had a good opportunity to ask about her accent. South African she said. Ahhh! Much, much more gun friendly than England. Maybe that partially explains it. I didn't ask.

I'm with Robb, I expected something once I lost concealment. But nothing? I guess that's good.

Sheep have no use for fangs and claws. But they become acquainted with them anyway.

Chris
June 16, 2009
In a comment to Totems.
[I frequently think of sheep when I see and hear of these type of people too. And I feel sad for them.--Joe]

I received the same email that Kevin did abut he got a post up before me so just head over to his place to see how to order this great shirt. Both of my daughters requested one and now proudly wear them.

The Gun Rights Policy Conference is now open for registration. The event is in St. Louis Missouri this year on September 25, 26, & 27.

I attended and was a speaker at GRPC 1999 and 2000. I was very impressed with it and highly recommend it.

I can see that our politicians haven't cornered the market on stupidity and insanity. I think after a liberal/progressive person gets to a certain age, they should have a net thrown over them and hauled away somewhere. The longer they are liberal, the crazier they get.

L. Hope
Baldwinsville, USA
June 15, 2009
In the comments to First 'anti-stab' knife to go on sale in Britain
Via Jeff.
[In a sense I think L. Hope is right. They are, in a sense, crazy. What I think is going on is that they do not or cannot understand the complexities of the real world. They believe central planning/control by "the right people" will result in a better result than letting people make their own decisions and being responsible for their own wellbeing. When unintended consequences happen they think they need to exercise more control rather than understanding there are people just as smart, if not smarter, working to defeat their controls and even take advantage of those controls to their advantage. Hence criminals take advantage of disarmed people by nearly risk free home invasions. The disarming of the population made the home invasions possible with only a knife as a weapon. This sort of thing is repeated on a massive scale in the black market, taxes, prostitution, gambling, etc. Government controls, implemented with the best of intentions, almost always create more problems than they fix. The person that believes government can solve everything keeps thinking "just one more law" when a new problem shows up that was caused by the previous law. Eventually, such as in this case with the "anti-stab" knife, outsiders realize the proponent of government control is in some sense insane. But unless one or more of the five conditions are broken the people on the inside will not only fail to realize their insanity but will proselytize even more. This happens even when the proponents are facing near certain death. Read up on Joseph Stalin and his supporters sometime.

The only real solution that I know of is to remove the social support for their delusions. Point out their insanity. Rub their noses in it. People that have do not have the commitment to the "cause" need to be made aware and then join in on the public humiliation of the proponents of the insanity.

If we fail to stop the insanity early enough we run the risk the next Joseph Stalin will take over the reins of power of a system intended for use only by "the right people" with predictable and catastrophic results. And even after tens of millions have died there will still be people saying Stalin was a great leader. I believe there are some forms of insanity which are not completely curable and liberalism/communism/progressivism/socialism/statism may be one of those. The best we can do is to remove them from power and ignore them as they spout their mad ravings in public.--Joe]

Via the Washington CCW email list from Joe Waldron:

This topic hasn't been discussed in a few years, so a refresher might be in order.

Washington does NOT have a "notify the officer you are carrying" requirement when in contact with the po-leece (usually initiated by them).

A general rule of thumb when dealing with ANY bureaucrat, and cops are bureaucrats, is to never burden them with unnecessary information. Bottom line: why complicate issues?

However (there's ALWAYS a "however...")

If the officer asks you to step out of the car, or in some other way might become aware of the fact that you are armed, prudence indicates you inform him/her that you are legally armed ("Officer/trooper, I have a concealed pistol license and I am carrying.") Then follow whatever directions he/she gives you. They have no real reason to disarm you, but the courts will back him/her up for "officer safety" reasons. (Never mind the fact that most cops only have knowledge of THEIR issue pistol, and no knowledge of how to properly clear yours.)

Cops don't like surprises, and at the top of that list is surprise guns.

Ditto being the first to call 9-1-1 if an incident occurs. The first one to call the cops is the one with credibility. All too often, a motorist legitimately draws/displays a firearm when another motorist is playing road rage. Incident ends. Gunnie reholsters and goes on about his/her business. Another "save" in the Guns Save Lives category. Followed a few hours later by a knock at the door (or a few minutes later by flashing blue lights), and an arrest for brandishing, or even Assault 2. (Yeah, that's a felony.) Road rage scumbags ALWAYS feel offended and call the cops.

Rule #1: Never surprise an officer, especially with a gun.

Rule #2: Always be the first to dial 9-1-1.

Yeah, I know, it bothers me sometimes, too. And there IS this thing called the Bill of Rights (which is pretty well protected in Washington, as compared to many other states). But complying with the rules avoids aggravation and headaches. And sometimes worse afflictions.

When in doubt, pony up the $11 or so and get Dave Workman's "Washington Gun Rights and Responsibilities." And pay special attention to the "responsibilities" part. It's the cheapest gun rights insurance policy you can buy.

Joe W former WSP dispatcher
16 year gun lobbyist
legislative chair, CCRKBA, WAC & FLSSA

Dan Rather did Fake but Accurate so I now present Factual but Misleading.

The two pictures below were taken within a short time of each other on Saturday before Xenia's wedding. Xenia is looking in the direction of her husband to be, John, who is shown in the picture below hers.

Draw your own conclusions about what these pictures mean.

I'll let Xenia and/or John explain the straight story.

Ry, I'll match that and raise you several magazines of tracers and about 100 people.

Any range I have ever been to would ban for life any of the people for their gun handling seen in this video (via email from Rob):

I'm all for having fun with guns but we can do it with much lower risk.

Son James lives in Bellevue. From the sidewalk in front of my office in Redmond I could throw a rock across the street into Bellevue. So how the police deal with guns is an important issue to me. I just ran across this training memo for Bellevue Police on open carry. An excerpt:

It has recently come to our attention that a group calling itself, "Pacific Northwest Open Carry" and with a spokesman named Lonnie Wilson, has an agenda that deals with the peaceable open carrying of a handgun in a holster. He says that while doing his research to write an informational bulletin for the public and for law enforcement, he asked a number of BPD officers if it was legal to carry a handgun in public, in the open, in a holster. He says he received a variety of answers, ranging from, it is legal, to, it is a felony, to, you will be stopped and arrested for brandishing.

As a refresher, the Corporals will go over the following:

1. Washington is an "open carry" state for firearms. This means a person may carry a firearm in an exposed holster unless there is something that makes it specifically illegal. For example, carrying a weapon onto school grounds or other prohibited places or carrying a weapon by most convicted felons or anyone convicted of a domestic violence crime.

2. Unlawful carrying or display. RCW 9.41.270 occurs when the person carries or displays a weapon in a manner under circumstances at a time and place that manifests alarm for the safety of persons or with an intent to intimidate. This is something more than just walking around with an exposed firearm. If there is a dispute for example and one person, while angry, displays the weapon to scare the other person.

3. Carrying without a Concealed Weapons Permit, RCW 9.41.050, occurs when a person carries a CONCEALED pistol on his person and does not have a CWP. A person with a CWP can carry a firearm in a vehicle without having the weapon on his person.

I knew it was legal in Washington but not all the cops are aware and certainly a lot of the general public is going to see open carry as cause for alarm. I don't like confrontations and being hassled by cops even if I'm in the right is something I avoid. But there have been times when I have left work, gone to James' place, had dinner with him, put my gun on (IWB holster) and without a coat to cover the gun walked to back my car. I would mostly cover the gun with my arm as I walked, it was usually dark, with virtually no one in the parking lot but I still worried a little bit about alarming someone and getting some police attention.

This memo eases my mind considerably. I'll start opening carrying more in James' parking lot and maybe discreetly when in a restaurant booth where it's inconvenient to conceal it.

Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

Ben Franklin
[I'm amazed at how many people get this wrong.--Joe]

We should melt down all weapons and make jewelry out of it. Or better yet, shackles for all you nuts who love your guns!

Elaine Brower
June 11, 2009
A comment to Gun grabbers shift into high gear.
[Bigotry is a terrible thing.--Joe]

Getting married in about 32 minutes.

Xenia Huffman-Scott
On Twitter at 1328 PDT June 13, 2009
[It went well with only some very, very minor glitches.

Leaving the bridal party preparation room. The wedding started at 1400.

Barb and I escorting Xenia down the "aisle".
Photo by Amy Huffman.

Xenia and John
Photo by Amy Huffman

Bridesmaids Hannah and Becky. Best-man James. Matron of Honor Kim.
Photo by Amy Huffman.

John and Xenia leaving in their "getaway car". A '69 Corvette.

At 1954 PDT I received a text message from Xenia, "We made it! The room has a beautiful view!"

Another one leaves the nest. [heavy sigh]--Joe]

Xenia is getting married tomorrow and I have been pretty busy with things. There won't be much blogging tomorrow either.

They will be getting married near a tree planted by Teddy Rooevelt.

Xenia and John, with Caleb and Kim in the background at the rehersal this evening.

The wedding is on the Adminstration Building lawn on the University of Idaho campus. The list of people in our family who have attended the university is rather large and includes:

• My father
• My brother Doug
• Niece Amy
• Niece Lisa
• Barb's mother
• Barb's sister Nancy
• Me
• Barb
• Son James
• Daughter Kim
• Daughter Xenia

We have roots there. And don't forget Sarah Palin attended the Unversity of Idaho as well, but she isn't family.

Gun lovers typically argue that when a perpetrator encounters an armed person--the perpetrator will either back down or get shot. The way to stop gun violence is with guns. We can prevent gun violence so long as sane and rational people are properly armed. So, crazy people care--or even notice?

Robert V. Thompson
June 11, 2009
Holocaust museum shooting--'just say no' to the gun lobby
[Actually, Mr. Thompson, the crazy person did notice. Someone with a gun shot him and he stopped his attack. As Greg Hamilton said, "Nothing is as debilitating and disorienting as blowing chunks of heart, spine, and brain out of your opponent."

I did not leave the above comment for Thompson. Since Thompson quoted Gandhi, I left a couple Gandhi quotes and asked him Just One Question. My guess is either Reasoned Discourse will break out or the comments will be ignored.--Joe]

I probably haven't mentioned my daughter Dorothy before. That's because she spends most of her time in Oz:

More pictures here.

Awesome job Xenia.

The anti-gun bigots often use words in ways that make no sense. For example "vigilantism" is frequent used to describe self-defense.

Here Paul Helmke demonstrates he is confused about definition of the word "force":

Congress should think very hard about their responsibilities for public safety before weakening gun laws in our nation's capital, and should rethink their decision to allow more guns in our national public areas," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"It is dangerous to force more guns into places that American families expect to be gun-free and safe," he said.

With the help of George Washington let me explain it to Paul (someone at the Brady Campaign office subscribes to the RSS feed for this blog):

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

Laws are force. Government enforcing those laws are force. Removing restrictions on people being able to defend themselves is not force. It is freedom.

And another thing, that shooting occurred in a "gun-free zone" already--just like Chicago and D.C.

"Gun-free and safe" is a self-contradictory phrase. Look up the FBI stats for yourself Paul.

I'd buy Paul a new dictionary but I think the problem is much more systemic than merely having a problem with the definition of words. Like many other anti-gun bigots I don't think he is capable of determining truth from falsity.

The gun rights people in the U.S. Congress have been giving their anti-gun bigot co-workers some interesting dilemmas recently. There was the elimination of D.C.'s gun laws amendment attached to the bill giving D.C. residents a voting member in the house (on hold). Then there was the removal of guns restrictions in National Parks attached to the "credit card reform" legislation (passed!). And now there is this (via email from Wesley D.):

The Pink Pistols and GOProud are supporting Senator John Thune (R-SD) on an amendment to recently-introduced Federal “so-called hate crime” legislation, Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

...

Conceptually, the amendment would allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry handguns across state lines with reciprocity, while following local concealed carry laws. That makes sense to me. If the original legislation is intended to reactively punish thuggish citizens for “so-called hate crimes,” it only makes sense to also proactively make it easier for all citizens to defend themselves and prevent the “so-called hate crimes” in the first place.

Although I agree with Linoge on a philosophical basis I also am of the opinion that once our enemies violated that principle (Hughes Amendment, Lautenberg Amendment, etc.) it would be unethical for us to defend our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms on an unequal playing field. We are only playing by their rules. So when they start whining just tell them something like, "Karma is a bitch ain't it?"

See also posts by Phil and Ride Fast.

Because courts have decided that people have an inherent right to use condoms to protect themselves and others during acts of consensual sex (surely an optional activity for both parties), they cannot rule that people do not have an inherent right to use firearms to protect themselves and others during acts of non-consensual violent attack (surely a non-optional activity for the victim of attack).

Mikee
0926, June 11, 2009
Comment to Second Amendment Might Be Back on Its Way to Supreme Court via Say Uncle.
[Contrast to James Kelly saying, "...the right to own a gun as a relatively meaningless, one-dimensional freedom, and thus interpret the banning of handguns as merely a minor disappointment to the minority of people concerned...".

Which way will the courts ultimately decide?--Joe]

Via the Steel Challenge Shooting Association:

Via Ry and the Seattle PI:

A vehicle drives on top of plastic toy guns to destroy them in Medellin, Colombia. Police exchanged children's plastic toy guns for food as part of a campaign to diminish the use of toy weapons. (AP Photo/Luis Benavides)
(June 08, 2009)

Via email from Rob:

WELCOME TO TPA
(Terrorist-Proof Airlines)

We at TPA, Terrorist-Proof Airlines, are in the flying business!

We can absolutely guarantee no WALK-ON GUNS, KNIVES, BOX CUTTERS, SHOE-BOMBS or other weapons will ever be carried onto OUR FLIGHTS!

Book your next flight with TPA, the safest airline in the industry.

Image here (not safe for work).

The claims are a bit exaggerated but still it makes for an amusing presentation. It would be much more effective and cheaper than existing airplane security. But neither the government nor the general public are interesting in effective security. They only want the appearance of security. People are willing to spent billions on ineffective security but you don't even hear a hint of something like the above as part of the solution. Why is that? Is "modesty" that important to people? Existing security has been repeatedly shown to be a complete sham yet people are not willing to do away with it for fear of an attack--yet they will not even consider doing something much cheaper that is effective.

[heavy sigh]

As I have said before, it's irrational to expect people to be rational.--Joe]

Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough.

Ibn al-Haytham
A key figure in development of the scientific method.
[I mention this because I suspected an anti-gun person was completely clueless as to how to distinguish truth from falsity. I was right. It is a very, very common problem--especially among anti-gun people. Asking them to explain how they determine what is true from false gets a blank stare and/or indignation without a valid response every single time I have tried it.

I was going to use a couple paragraphs from this article for the QOTD but Jeff bet me to it.--Joe]

Apparently I've run across another novice trying to run with the big dogs. I posted about him earlier today and he let my comment go through then responded with this:

This is what really gets me about people who believe that the Second Amendment means that we have a constitutional right to own a gun. I provided a whole bunch of statistics in this post about the cost of our love affair with guns in terms both of money and the impact on our lives, but yet, you choose not to address any of that. Instead, you pose a question which is completely unanswerable, as if that’s supposed to render everything else I’ve described as irrelevant, which it doesn’t by any means (and by the way, I have no desire to waste my time trying to find an instance like the one you describe).

As noted here, “in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court departed from over 100 years of judicial precedent and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes unconnected with service in a militia (in the Heller ruling).”

Even the Cruikshank case you cite states that, “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution.”

Individual states and municipalities should be allowed to regulate guns as they see fit, but I will never believe that there’s a Second Amendment right to own a gun (and, in Cruikshank, it sounds like Chief Justice Morrison Waite didn’t think there was either).

I responded with the following which apparently went through without moderation:

What really gets me about people trying to infringe up on our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is they only look at the downside of gun ownership. They refuse to look at the benefits. There are between 800,000 and 2,500,000 defensive gun uses in the U.S. each year. Most of those were without a shot being fired resulting in no injuries to anyone.

Another thing that gets me about people trying to infringe on our rights is they include legally and morally justified deaths and injuries from successful defensive uses of guns in their totals of dead and injured. They even include justified police shootings!

If you had read the actual decision you would have found that the question of an individual right was supported 9-0 in Heller. The 5-4 decision was about whether the D.C. law infringed upon that right.

If you had read the very next line in the Cruikshank decision you would have discovered "Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The right to keep and bear arms is a preexisting right. The Second Amendment is a guarantee that it will not be infringed.

If you "will never believe that there's a Second Amendment right to own a gun" then I guess there really isn't any more to discuss. Facts and legal decisions are irrelevant to you. But I just have to ask, are you also of the same opinion in regard to the 13th Amendment as well? Should individual states and municipalities be allowed to regulate slaves as they see fit?

If you carefully read his comment above you will notice he has announced phase one of "Reasoned Discourse" (graphic stolen from Robb Allen):

Also note that he says Just One Question "is completely unanswerable". Nice of him to admit that right up front.

I will not be surprised if phase two, deleting or blocking of comments, occurs shortly.

Have fun with the new toy I found for you guys. Play nice now. Be sure to share your toy with others.

Update June 10, 0800: More comments are coming in. His inability to pay attention to detail is remarkable.

Scott:

Here’s some statistics on deaths and injuries caused by medical care: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm
(with links to supporting documents)

783,936 total iatrogenic deaths annually; 98,000 specifically from medical errors. From these numbers would you make a case that we should ban doctors?

When you look only at the “cost of our love affair with guns” and not the benefits you’re making a case for banning doctors due to the harm they cause.

Another question for you: are all deaths by gunfire bad?

When armed robbers, muggers, psychotic ex-boyfriends, etc. are shot and killed by their intended victims – is that a bad thing? Those people are counted in the statistics you cite.

The plural of anecdote is not data, but anecdotes are useful in understanding the data. See http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html for defensive gun use anecdotes.

doomsy:

I took a look at the claytoncreamer site you linked to, and you’re right; you’re talking about anecdotes of people who defend themselves with their guns versus the statistics I presented in my post. I don’t know if the number of people in this country using guns to defend themselves matches the number of suicides/accidental shootings, but I have a feeling they don’t (have to leave it up to someone else who has the time to compile those stats, if they can).

I could find stories of accidental victims of gun violence if I had the time or desire, but Bob Herbert already noted them (happens all too often in Philadelphia, for example, followed by the predictable wailing and gnashing of teeth while nothing changes). And concerning the claytoncreamer site, I have no issue at all if the guns the people used to defend themselves were purchased legally.

Oh, and your suggestion that I would be in favor of banning doctors is so silly that it doesn’t deserve a response.

doomsy:

OK, I just saw the comment including the link to the Keszler study citing (allegedly) two million instances of defensive gun use. Good for you – you made your point.

Just make sure you communicate this information to the families and friends of police officers killed in the line of duty because they’re outmanned by thugs, or families and friends of school children killed by stray fire from drug dealers. God forbid that they impugn your right to own any gun you want whenever you want.

doomsy:

Sorry, I meant the Gary Kleck study – and speaking of which, you might want to look at this.

Joe:

That criticism of Kleck's study was published in 1997. A lot of followup studies have been done to address the concerns expressed there and elsewhere. The results keep coming up very close to the same.

Regardless of the actual number any honest advocacy of restrictions on weapons must take into account the benefits as well as the harm attributed to free access. Hence my Just One Question which you say you have no interest in answering.

I therefore can only conclude public safety is not your real objective. Just what is your objective with advocating restrictions on this specific enumerated right?

Update June 10, 0910: Phase two of Reasoned Discourse has been implemented:

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Update June 10, Final: I found his deleted post in the Google Cache for future reference. It doesn't include the comments however. The above and the comment here are probably all but one or two.

This post by David made my back and neck tingly for a good five seconds followed by my eyes welling up with tears.

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.

Ben Franklin
Also attributed to Dale Carnegie.
[I was reminded of this by what The Liberal Doomsayer had to say yesterday on guns. I left a comment which is "awaiting moderation". In fear of reasoned discourse I am posting it here as well:

The individual right to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court since at least 1875 (U.S. v. Cruikshank).

It was only in the 20th Century that people attempted to rewrite it to prevent blacks from obtaining firearms. See the link above for more details.

And before you advocate for more infringements on this specific enumerated right please answer Just One Question:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

--Joe]

Today Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels came to Microsoft to talk to a group of us. He talked for about five or ten minutes then opened it up to questions. The first question was about fixing potholes. The second question was mine, "Several months ago you said you were going ban guns on city property. Then the state AG said the city could not do that because of state preemption of gun laws. You said you were going to do it anyway. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said they would sue and had a plaintiff lined up. There is now speculation that you are going to back down. Is this true? Or are you going to go ahead with your plans?"

He explained the situation last year at the Folk Life Festival where a man with a drug habit and some mental problems got in a fight and during the scuffle he pulled his gun and a shot was fired wounding three people. The man had a concealed carry permit. The Mayor said he "absolutely" planned to continue with his plans to ban guns in parks and other public places. This year at Folk Life Festival they had signs up prohibiting people with guns, even with concealed carry permits, and locker storage for people that came with guns. "There were no protests." That sort of thing will continue he promised.

I was only allowed one question so I could not do a follow up on it. But another guy did. He said that the perp should not have even been allowed to own a gun let alone a permit to carry it concealed. He asked if Nickels believed someone on drugs and with mental problems would obey a sign which said "No guns allowed". Nickels started talking about the "gun show loophole" and about there being a gun show every weekend in the state and you could pay cash with no questions asked. The "easy access to guns" was the problem.

If it had been a black guy with a drug habit and mental problems would he have gone on a crusade to ban all blacks? Or if it had been a Jew or homosexual would he ban all Jews and homosexuals? If not, then why does he go after gun owners because someone with mental problems and drug habit does something criminal or stupid?

In article 1 section 24 of the Washington State Constitution it says:

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

But Mayor Nickels doesn't recognize that right. He believes he and Seattle are above the law, just like George Wallace thought he didn't have to obey the law. It took Federal Marshals and the National Guard to get Wallace to obey. Although I think it would be rather amusing to have the Washington State Patrol haul Nickels off to jail I hope Nickels is a quicker study than Wallace and doesn't waste taxpayer money to continue his war on the civil rights of people in Seattle.

What I have found is that if you contact the media with info about your event and you act half-way sane they generally treat you okay. That appears to be the case this time:

H/T to the anti-gun blog "The Gun Guys" who posted it without comment. I suspect he was left speechless by an aneurysm or something similar.

Update: He has updated his blog post with hate speech like the following. Imagine what the response would be if he were talking about blacks, homosexuals, or Jews in public or interracial couples--right there for your children to see!

Across the country, gun proponents are continuing to ramp up their efforts to normalize abnormal behavior by encouraging citizens to openly carry loaded firearms.

...

That's right...it's perfectly legal in Kentucky and Michigan to openly carry a firearm. Unbeknownst to most Americans, some form of open carry is legal in approximately 43 states and the gun lobby wants you to know it. Hence, there are a growing number of public events across the country to get the gun crowd to come out of the closet so to speak in the hopes of intimidating the public into accepting their dangerous worldview.

The real world implications of the open carry crusade is chilling. Consider:

• Sipping hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you;
• Attending a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt; or
• Boarding a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers openly carrying weapons.

Unless this is the kind of world you want for you and your children, Americans’ need to pick up the phone to call state and federal lawmakers to voice outrage over the gun lobby’s extremist agenda.

It's ironic that today's parents are hyper-vigilant about what their children eat, whom they hang out with and whether they have sunscreen on. Yet, in sharp contrast, there is remarkably little awareness or concern about the 280 million guns in civilian hands in our country—many of which are carried into countless public places each day where families frequent.

Next time you take your child on an outing with you, think about how many people within earshot may soon be openly carrying a gun as you wait in line at the aquarium, shop at the local grocery store, or sit in a theater watching a movie.

Unless American's wake up to this crisis and demand that guns laws effectively address the inherent dangers associated with carrying guns in public places, the seemingly far-fetched examples of every day outings turned into repeated encounters with armed citizens will become all to real.

After all, allowing a small group of armed gun owners -- versus trained law enforcement officers -- to make potentially life and death decisions about public safety in restaurants, churches, theaters and parks is a frightening prospect.

America is being held hostage by the gun lobby's extremist agenda to flood our country with firearms as evidenced by the recent passage of legislation allowing loaded guns in National Parks. It's time we turned back the clock on this deadly trend before America's children are sitting in school with armed teachers and the gun lobby's abnormal behavior becomes the new norm.

It's a specific enumerated right guaranteed by the U.S. and numerous state constitutions and he thinks of it as if it were public defecation in McDonalds, on sidewalks, and your childrens playground. And furthermore...he gets paid by the Joyce Foundation to write that crap.

Viewed logically, virtually all "gun-control" legislation protects criminals from armed victims.

Think about that for a moment. Law-abiding citizens are prevented from using self-defense and protecting their own life and property.

For most of the past century, "gun-control" laws have been tested in America. Each and every one of them has failed miserably. Criminals and their criminal activities have not been affected by even the most draconian (unconstitutional) laws. The reason for their universal failure is no mystery: Criminals - by definition - do not obey laws!

Ironically, the anti-gun activists use the very fact that "gun-control" legislation is universally ineffective as a rallying cry for more of the same. That is sheer lunacy!

Samuel A. Hill
June 8, 2009
Gun-control laws should be repealed
[It's as if he had read Just One Question or arrived at the same conclusion on his own. Nice job!--Joe]

I mentioned this to Breda in chat at the Gun Blogger Conspiracy and she said, "....sigh well, I'm going braless next time". If it weren't for the extremely high risk of getting arrested I would go completely naked through the security check point just to make a point.

There is bill in the house (H.R. 2200) which would give TSA authority to spend $15.7 billion over fiscal years 2010-2011. That's $15.7 billion to spend on A Security Theater.

I guess this shouldn't be too surprising. The Democrats frequently spent tax money on the arts--including those promoting nudity.

What people don’t realize, at the national level, at least, is that I can count the federal gun laws on the books on one hand. I don’t even need all five fingers to do it.

Doug Pennington
June 7, 2009
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Gun Loving Sons-of-Guns--How different is Georgia’s attitude about guns from those of other states?
[He goes on to enumerate "the 1934 ban on machine guns", the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady Law. 

Giving him an allowance for NFA34 covering suppressors, short barreled shotguns/rifles in addition to machine guns and that GCA68 covers more than prohibition of felons owning firearms. He conveniently overlooks the following (here and here are partial references):

• The executive order import bans
• The "sporting purpose" requirements on imported guns
• The Hughs Amendment
• Bans on "destructive devices" which includes some shotguns
• Restrictions on disguised guns (disguised as pens, cell phones, canes, etc.)
• Restrictions on handguns with a forward grip
• Extra taxes on guns and ammo
• Restrictions on guns near schools
• Restrictions on sale of a gun to a person in another state
• Restrictions on how you can ship a firearm
• Restrictions on firearms on airplanes
• Restrictions on transporting a firearm while aboard a "common carrier"
• Age restrictions on gun possession
• Age restrictions on ammo possession
• Restrictions on "armor-piercing handgun ammo"
• Restrictions on sales of multiple handguns to one person within a five day period
• Documentation of sales via form 4474 which must be stored for 20 years
• Bans on possession by people convicted of domestic violence

Apparently Pennington is living in an alternate reality from the one I'm living in. But that isn't surprising. It's long been known that gun control advocates have mental problems.--Joe]

Gun control, as a philosophy and as a political mechanism, is a flimsy sham. It has become a smoke screen behind which its proponents hide two simple facts: 1) they are more interested in controlling the public than reducing crime, and 2) they are incompetent when it comes to reducing crime.

Dave Workman
May 29, 2009
Gun control laws target wrong people, don’t stop violence
[It's preaching to the choir but it helps to reinforce the talking points.--Joe]

Mikeb302000 has a post up about U.S. v. Miller. Comments are moderated so I'm putting my comment (with a couple minor grammar edits) here for safe keeping and better visibility:

Shotguns having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length were not well known as being used by the militia and military. Hence because Miller lawyer was not there to present such evidence he lost.

If Miller had been charged with not registering and paying a tax on a machine gun then he probably would have won. This is because it is well known that "possession or use" of machine guns have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

I know the Brady Campaign people sometimes read the gun blogs, including mine, so maybe they actually are listening to some of their critics. From todays blog post by Paul Helmke:

Keeping this in mind, there is an immediate economic and public health crisis in America that, so far, both the President and Congress have chosen to ignore: approximately 12,000 gun homicides, 17,000 gun suicides, 650 accidental gun deaths, plus 70,000 non-fatal gun injuries occur every year in this country.

Do you notice anything unusual about those numbers? They are breaking out the suicides and accidents from the homicides. This is not their normal modus operandi. Usually it's just "30000 gun deaths per year".

It's a step in the right direction Paul. Thanks.

Now if you would just break out the justified and praiseworthy shootings we might be able to have a "meaningful dialog" about the utility of guns in society.

Following a link from Sebastian on efforts to block importation of common knives I found this:

Our interpretation of 15 U.S.C. § 1241(b) and 19 CFR 12.95(a)(1) is supported by case law. In Demko v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 83, 88–89 (Fed. Cl. 1999), the Court of Federal Claims, in analyzing a regulation regarding the grandfathered sale of ‘‘street sweeper’’ shotguns, recited the following interpretations of the word ‘‘or’’ as used in statutes and regulations:

‘‘Generally the term ‘or’ functions grammatically as a coordinating conjunction and joins two separate parts of a sentence.’’ Ruben v. Secretary of DHHS, 22 Cl. Ct. 264, 266 (1991) (noting that ‘‘or’’ is generally ascribed disjunctive intent unless contrary to legislative intent). As a disjunctive, the word ‘‘or’’ connects two parts of a sentence, ‘‘but disconnect[ s] their meaning, the meaning in the second member excluding that in the first.’’ Id. (quoting G. Curme, A Grammar of the English Language, Syntax 166 (1986)); see Quindlen v. Prudential Ins. Co., 482 F.2d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 1973) (noting disjunctive results in alternatives, which must be treated separately). Nonetheless, courts have not adhered strictly to such rules of statutory construction. See Ruben, 22 Cl. Ct. at 266. For instance, ‘‘it is settled that ‘or’ may be read to mean ‘and’ when the context so indicates.’’Willis v. United States, 719 F.2d 608, 612 (2d Cir. 1983); see Ruben, 22 Cl. Ct. at 266 (quoting same); see also DeSylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 573, 100 L. Ed. 1415, 76 S. Ct. 974 (1956) (‘‘We start with the proposition that the word ‘or’ is often used as a careless substitute for the word ‘and’; that is, it is often used in phrases where ‘and’ would express the thought with greater clarity.’’);

Emphasis added.

They go on to conclude:

In New York Ruling Letter (‘‘NY’’) G83213, dated October 13, 2000, CBP determined that ’’a folding knife with a spring-loaded blade [which could] be easily opened by light pressure on a thumb knob located at the base of the blade, or by a flick of the wrist’’ was an ‘‘inertia-operated knife’’ that ‘‘is prohibited under the Switchblade Act and subject to seizure. See 19 C.F.R. §12.95 (a)(1).’’ In NY H81084, dated May 23, 2001, CBP determined that 18 models of knives ‘‘may be opened with a simple flick of the wrist, and therefore are prohibited as inertial operated knives.’’ In HQ 115725, dated July 22, 2002, CBP determined that a ‘‘dual-blade folding knife’’ in which the ‘‘non-serrated blade is spring-assisted [and] is opened fully by the action of the spring after the user has pushed the thumb-knob protruding from the base of the blade near the handle to approximately 45 degrees from the handle’’ ‘‘is clearly a switchblade as defined in § 12.95(a)(4) (Knives with a detachable blade that is propelled by a spring-operated mechanism and components thereof.)’’

Again, emphasis added.

So now it appears you can be prosecuted for possession of a switchblade knife if the spring holding the blade shut is broken. It's the Olofson case applied to knives. And it appears they are pushing toward calling any knife you can open with one hand as a switchblade. And who does the testing to determine if whether the knife "may be opened with a simple flick of the wrist"? Will the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, Knives, and Sharp Pointy Sticks have labs full of technicians with calibrated wrists such that you can send your knife in for periodic testing to make sure the retention spring hasn't gotten too weak?

I have to wonder if a Second Amendment test case can't be brought up on knives in one of the states in the 9^th Circuit where incorporation has already been made (or in D.C.). What is the government going to say, "Sure, the Second Amendment guarantees you the right to carry a handgun to defend yourself but we can't let people own something as dangerous as a knife in their own home! Think of the children!"? Actually, they might. But it would be pretty funny seeing them laughed out of court when they do.

Update: I just figured out how to open my Spyderco Delica "with a simple flick of the wrist". I think I can use the same method with nearly any folding knife. It's easier and faster to open my Delica one-handed the way it was intended but still it appears that that if the criteria is "may be opened with a simple flick of the wrist" to define it as a "switchblade" and hence it's outlawed then it's game over man. We then will have to go to the courts to be able to carry a folding knife.

For years, the gun prohibitionist lobby has perpetuated a sense of fear against armed citizens in various public venues, including restaurants, Yet in Washington State, where the Citizens Committee is headquartered, it has been legal for many years to carry firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol, and it has not resulted in the kind of violence predicted by opponents of the Tennessee measure.

Alan Gottlieb
CCRKBA Chairman
June 4, 2009
CCRKBA SAYS TENNESSEE LAWMAKERS ACTED CORRECTLY ON OVERRIDE
[And here is a list of restaurants that are putting up the equivalent of "no coloreds allowed" signs up in response to the new law.--Joe]

I have listened to all 11 episode of the Vicious Circle podcasts now. Most of them were in two five hour stretches. Shortly after listening I was fairly pleased. But now I'm starting to hate it--for several days I have had this earworm of the music they use.

Will a trip to the range without hearing protection rid me of it? Or am I going to have to use a couple pounds of Boomerite?

As everyone probably knows there was a airplane that went down en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris a few days ago. Almost for certain there were no survivors. A great tragedy.

But in reading this report on the victims families I noticed mention was made of the probable loss of gun control advocate Pablo Dreyfus (among other things he helped with this -- see for example here).

But when Neal Knox died (see also) I didn't find any big name media outlets making mention of the loss of a historic civil rights leader.

I wonder why the difference...

No, not really. I'm pretty sure I know why.

David has been posting a lot of really nice Boomershoot 2009 photos recently, Matthew has one here and here, and now Xenia has posted a couple as well.

I really like this one:

Failed fireball.
From Xenia's Live Journal but taken by her sister Kim.

It gives me some clues as to what went wrong with the fireball target this year. It looks like, as Ry reported privately to me a month ago, that half or more of the explosives failed to detonate. I know we had a problem with the targets made on Saturday. There were way too many targets on the hillside with solid hits in them that failed to detonate. Every single one of them was made on Saturday. I think the explosives were packed too tight. I need to maintain better quality control.

This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.

Ben Franklin
[I can't say that I disagree. The problem is that people have not been taught to know and prize their rights. Ignorance has been a big part of our country's downfall. People vote for politicians promising perceived benefits without glimmer of recognition there might be unintended consequences.--Joe]

I am generally of the opinion that someone who can graduate from law school and become a state attorney general would have to be someone pretty smart. Hence, if they say a bunch of stuff that is totally wrong one must either conclude they aren't that smart, they are lying or they are out of touch with reality.

I have yet to meet a lawyer I considered really stupid. Incompetent, yeah, I saw a public defender I wouldn't want defending a dead dog. But he wasn't really stupid.

Lawyers aren't supposed to lie to the court. Supposedly they can get in trouble for that. But I've seen lawyers do it. Flat out, bald-faced lies to the judge. He had been given the facts just a few hours earlier and lied--big fat juice lies. My lawyers was flabbergasted and because he wasn't expecting it was unable to present any evidence to the contrary or even put up a coherent argument about it. Other people that saw and heard it and a bunch of other actions he engaged in concluded he was a sociopath. Apparently you can make a lot of money as a sociopathic lawyer.

Another explanation for presenting false evidence is they are just out of touch with reality. They live in some sort of imaginary world that only occasionally intersects with reality--like a few times a day for water and food intake and semi-solid elimination.

I'm not sure if J. Joseph Curran Jr. is a sociopathic liar or is just out of touch with reality. But here is one of his semi-solid elimination deposits:

I further proposed that while hunting and other recreational uses of firearms should remain unfettered, our long-term goal should be an end to unrestricted handgun ownership. Sportsmen do not typically use handguns, and studies on self-defense make clear that people in households with handguns are more likely to be victims of gun violence than those in homes without them. I argued that handguns exact too high a price.

...

Legislation to close the gun show loophole nationally is pending in Congress. Childproofing handguns so only owners and authorized users can fire them would save many lives. The notion that guns in our national parks will make vacationing families safer should not carry the day. And surely we can agree that civilian ownership of military-style assault weapons, which make mass slaughters possible, serves no positive purpose.

Guns have killed 300,000 and maimed another 700,000 in the past decade - a million victims since Columbine. Had we done more 10 years ago, how many of those million might we have saved? Ten years from now, do we want to be asking ourselves the same question?

"Sportsmen" do use handguns. Both for hunting and numerous other sports such as USPSA, Steel Challenge, bowling pin shoots, IPDA, cowboy action shooting, and bullseye pistol just for starters. It's not at all uncommon for some sportsmen to shoot 10K to 100K rounds through their handguns in a single year. This makes the use of handguns in the shooting sports much, much more common that rifle hunting. Is his statement a lie or is he out of touch with reality? He probably really doesn't know what handguns are used for. So, I'm saying he is out of touch with reality on this one.

In his reference to "studies on self-defense" he apparently is referring to the discredited Kellerman study. That study was so bad that when congress held hearing on it (it was paid for by the government and questions were being asked about it being shoddy science as well as being written for a preordained political conclusions) Kellermen and others that approved of the study didn't even bother to show up for the hearing to defend themselves. That hearing was in the mid to late 90s. One would think a college graduate with an interest in gun politics would know his pet piece of "evidence" had been completely and totally trashed in a very public forum. Unless, that is, he was intent on lying or he was out of touch with reality. I really can't decide which it is.

There is no gun show loophole. The same laws that apply to gun shops apply to dealers at gun shows. Is he lying about this or is he out of touch with reality? He is a lawyer. He should know. He claims to know of the existence of laws in states that "closed their gun-show loopholes". I say he's lying on this one.

"Childproof handguns" do not exist. I used to work with biometrics (the type of technology proposed for use in making guns only usable by their owners) and I have my doubts the technology will ever be capable of delivering this dream. Let alone passing some law (like New Jersey did some years ago) and having biometrically equipped guns magically appear on the shelves. He must be out of touch with reality on this one.

The "notion that guns in our national parks will make vacationing families safer should not carry the day" implies he does not care about the facts. He apparently only cares that people believe as he does. He's definitely out of touch with reality with this one--and he wants the rest of the world to join him.

"Surely we can agree"? No. We can't agree. He implies "assault weapons" have no positive purpose. But he doesn't come right out and say it. He is using weasel words to bias people's thinking. I suspect he knows the "assault weapons" he wants to ban include millions of guns owned by everyday Americans. Most of the guns I own, rifles and pistols, qualify as "assault weapons" under one or more "assault weapon" bans in the various states. I call this a lie on his part.

Guns have killed or injured a million victims in the last ten years? No. Completely false. People using guns have killed or injured a million people, not necessarily victims. He doesn't use any weasel words here. He flat out says guns killed people. And he calls all those people "victims". About half of the deaths were suicide. Suicides are not caused by guns. There are many factors but gun ownership is not one of them. He completely ignores the justified and praiseworthy deaths and injuries of violent criminals by innocent victims using guns to defend themselves. He must be out of touch with reality to be unaware of these facts. Had he been lying I think he would have tried to use some weasel words to defend against the obvious flaws in his statement.

Final score:

I have to conclude that he is out of touch with reality. It's time to send him to the funny farm and give him some meds.

I've had numerous people and even the owners of one motel* contact me about the date for Boomershoot 2010.

I've set the dates to be April 23^rd, 24^th, and 25^th. Go ahead and make your motel reservations if you plan on attending.

I'm still working on the entry form software and waiting for a quote on the price of the dinner. I thought I would have all this done weeks ago but it just hasn't happened. Maybe this weekend I'll get it done and open up entries.

* A portion of the motel owner email:

Joe,

We are owners of the XXX Motel in Orofino, Idaho. We appreciate you sponsoring the Boomershoot because it gives us great business during the month of April. We have some great people who have been coming here just to participate in the Boomershoot.

We have had several requests asking if we know when the 2010 Boomershoot will happen. So we thought we would contact you and see if you have set any dates for the 2010 event? Some of our guests reserved rooms already just taking a guess when it would be.

Please let us know when you have chosen the dates.

Thanks,

What if people had been talking about passing a law putting curfew on "people of color" being out in public at night? After all with the darking skin color it only makes sense that they could take advantage of that to commit crimes under the cover of darkness. That seems like a "reasonable restriction" that should prevent crime doesn't it?

Furthermore when the bigoted politicians get voted (and shouted) down in public over it they decide to meet with the KKK and the Aryan Nations to plan their campaign for next time. Political leaders of the opposition, the ACLU, and the NAACP show up for the meeting and are barred at the door from attending the meeting. Then they hold a press conference and block any opposing people from attending.

What do you suppose the response in the mainstream media would be?

Now imagine it's gun owner rights that are being plotted against and it's the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the NRA, and National Shooting Sports Foundation instead of the ACLU and NAACP being blocked at the door.

Now what do you suppose the response in the mainstream media would be?

You got it. You'll only hear about it via new media:

• Tom King
• Jacob
• Sebastian

There are some people speculating that Seattle Mayor Nickels is going to quietly walk away from the gun ban on city property he has been talking about for the last year:

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels might be having second thoughts about moving forward with his controversial "dangerous weapons" ban. The executive order would effectively prohibit the possession of firearms on most city-owned properties. The ban has naturally drawn the criticism of Second Amendment rights groups and also Attorney General Rob McKenna, who has stated that it violates state preemption statutes.

In March, we wrote that the Mayor's office was still planning on following through with the ban, with it taking effect "sometime in May".

...

"They have a dead-bang loser in court and they know we were going to sue," Gottlieb challenged. "The Mayor talks a good game but he hasn't put his cards on the table yet."

Although puzzled by the inaction, Gottlieb theorized that the Mayor could be seeking a middle ground out of the situtation.

"I have a feeling we won't see this executive order," Gottlieb predicted.

Nickels is going to do some public speaking to a group that I am a part of in the near future. If I get the chance I'm going to ask him about it.

The fact that political ideologies are tangible realities is not a proof of their vitally necessary character. The bubonic plague was an extraordinarily powerful social reality, but no one would have regarded it as vitally necessary.

Wilhelm Reich
[I'm thinking of dominate political ideologies of Democrats and Republicans. Extraordinarily powerful social realities with the utility of the bubonic plague. That sounds about right.

The major political parties appear to have no principles or underlying philosophy. As near as I can tell they are merely coalitions of people in desire of fame/power/money. Political ideologies based on consistent philosophies such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party are for the most part unable to achieve power. This is in part because they are consistent philosophies which makes them less willing to compromise.

I sometimes fantasize of creating a political system that makes such coalitions of zero or negative value but have been unsuccessful of anything approaching something feasible. I keep coming back to enumerated powers such that the coalitions can't exceed certain boundaries. We tried that once and look at what we have now. There needs to be a "Fourth Branch of Government" or something that does nothing but permanently nullify laws and remove politicians who voted for them from government if something like 10% of the members think the law violates the constitution.--Joe]

I don't know how many times I've heard from an anti-rights activist; "There are 'Reasonable Restrictions' on all rights..." as an attempt to convince us that gun restrictions, in and of themselves, are not necessarily a bad thing, but it's been a lot.  As often as not, the pro-rights advocate falls for it, too.

The main argument the anti uses is the old, "You can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" meme as an example of a Reasonable Restriction on a constitutionally protected right (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, therefore your second amendment rights are null and void.  QED).

Oh please!  Seriously; when has fraud been a candidate for the title "free speech"? 

Anyone?

It is a malicious fraud to yell "Fire!" if there is no fire.

The first amendment does not protect fraud, libel, slander, or incitement to illegal violence as "free speech" any more than the second amendment protects armed robbery and murder as an integral part of the right to keep and bear arms.  It says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".  It doesn't say, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to threaten, to rob or to kill anyone they wish, shall not be infringed".

We can readily accept laws against robbery, aggravated assault, and murder without our second amendment rights being threatened in the least.  "Keeping and bearing" arms has nothing to do with committing crimes using said arms.  Keeping and Bearing is absolutely protected, and, well, crime is crime.  Can you say, "Duh"?  Everyone together now;  "Derrrrrr!"

Can we please not, ever, allow the old (says in a snotty tone) "Well, there are plenty of Reasonable Restrictions on other rights, and I don't see YOU opposing with THOSE" argument to get any traction whatsoever?

I decided to tell James Kelly what I really thought of him and his attitude toward gun ownership. My latest comment (which may or may not make it through moderation):

James, you need to look at the actual numbers of lives saved versus lives lost because of the "mass legal gun ownership". You do a fine job of expressing your opinion but not backing them up with facts. Which is the entire point of Just One Question-which you still have not answered. You have come up with plausible hypotheses as to why it might be that firearms restrictions in the U.K. have not improved public safety but you have no numbers which show that it has improved public safety there or anywhere else.

Until you can give us numbers you have nothing but opinions. And until you have numbers to back them up you are no different than someone ranting about how terrible it is that Jews, blacks, or homosexuals are "spoiling the neighborhood".

And not to worry, I would never knowing accept an invitation to a dinner party with someone that advocated the infringement of such a basic human right anymore than I would socialize with someone that owned slaves or supported laws that imprisoned homosexuals merely because of their sexual orientation.

Via an email from Mike B. I found out about this article in the NY Times. Once you get over the cringe factor of the improper grip of the gun that has me wanting to find a box of band-aids just from looking at the picture you find an anti-gun person proposing an interesting experiment:

I propose curbing gun violence not by further restricting the availability of guns but by expanding and reorienting it. Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.

Never mind all the facts he gets wrong like "men would still be forbidden" (emphasis mine), his belief in the existence of "safe guns", etc. I find it exceedingly interesting that an admitted anti-gun advocate is willing to consider experimental data in the formation of gun policy. And furthermore that he would suggest arming those that are more likely to be in need of arms. He seems to actually get the concept but just needs some more data to convince himself of the efficacy of the RKBA.

Of course such an experiment would be illegal in forbidding men to be armed and perhaps requiring women to be armed (they are required to wear clothes in public so how is it different to require they be armed?). But it does bring up delightful thoughts of proposing such experiments to other anti-gun people to see how they handle such a curve ball thrown at them.

When a man is a fool, in England we only trust him with the immortal concerns of human beings.

Reverend Sydney Smith
From the book I Wish I'd Said That! by Nick Harris which gives more background:

In the good/bad old days, a man's eldest son inherited his estate, another son went into the army -- and the dunce went into the Church.

[Perhaps that should now be "When a main is a fool, in the U.S. we only trust him with writing editorials."

I'm reminded of this because of this dunce who says, "This writer grew up on a farm, enjoying hunting for ducks, geese and pheasants, and in adulthood, shot deer while a pastor in Spearfish." I don't intend to tar all pastors and it appears this guy is no longer a pastor anyway. Perhaps he had trouble with comprehension of the Bible as well as the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller.

More available from Jeff, Robb, Say Uncle, and Sebastian.--Joe]

I never though I'd see the day. I recall listening to Radio Moscow, pre Gorbachev, on HF (that's "shortwave radio" to most) as they blasted the U.S. and her evil capitalist ways. They did it in English, using an announcer who sounded like your favorite uncle from Texas. Now our own government officials sound much like Radio Moscow's English service did in those days, but more strident.

Via the Rush Limbaugh radio show, I heard Pravda is criticizing us for our "descent" into socialism.

Things are bad when Pravda says we've gone too far to the left.

Pravda's web server seems to have melted. It worked just minute ago, but when Rush mentions a web site it usually spells "meltdown". Keep trying. You have to see it.

From our friend Howard;

Friends:

Good morning (in your time zone) from Jerusalem. The biggest ever Civil Defense preparedness drill has begun.

Following clash Hamas called on its members: Confront PA as if you're confronting the occupation.

Words fail me too. Just thought you should know. It sounds all too much like the sort of thinking (or lack thereof) that's going on here.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

Thomas Jefferson
[One might reasonably conclude that the bailout of the automobile and banking industries is evidence that this principle has been forgotten in the years since Jefferson help found this nations government. But then what do I know? I'm not the constitutional law professor who actually respects the constitution like President Obama.--Joe]