The View From North Central Idaho

These are bad days for Paul Hemeke and supporters. Just as people with a terminal illness go through the five stages of grief they see their world view dying and are experiencing a similar process. Here we have denial:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Chicago case is "unlikely to have much practical impact on most gun laws regardless of how the Court rules."

"Even if the Court were to hold the Second Amendment applicable to states and localities," he said, "such a ruling is unlikely to change the crucial holding by the Supreme Court in Heller that a wide range of reasonable gun laws are presumptively constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right is narrowly limited to guns in the home for self-defense."

Steve Chapman
September 30, 2009
The end of the Chicago handgun ban
[This was based on the news that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case that will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies to states and other political jurisdictions or just the Federal government.

Amazing. Ten years ago I was talking to leaders in the gun rights movement who said that we would completely lose the right to keep and bear arms within ten years with Chicago-like discrimination against gun owners the norm. Now we are poised on the edge of slapping them aside into the dustbin of history along with segregated schools, restrooms, and water fountains.--Joe]

Barb and I had dinner with son James and his girlfriend Kelsey tonight. We managed to get a picture of her and James (neither like pictures taken of themselves). We think they are a pretty cute couple:

Maybe I'm the last to know, but I just found out that the nominal outer diameter of a gauge-numbered machine screw is defined as the gauge number multiplied by .013", plus .060".  The actual diameter is usually two or three thousandths or so under nominal.  I know 'cause we tried it.  And as you are all know doubt aware; once you reach a quarter inch, you're going by fractional inch dimensions instead of gauge.  Wood screws go by their own, as yet mysterious to me, system, probably developed by some guy and his partner making screws by hand 250 years ago.

Who cares?  Well, we have run into problems with what we refer to as "stacking tolerances" in our production-- a threading tap varies slightly (both initially and over time with wear) the anodizing depth varies slightly, and screw dimensions vary slightly even if you stick with one supplier.  If these variations all go in the wrong direction at once, you end up with customers calling you saying the screws are so tight in the mount that some of them are breaking, even though you've been doing everything exactly the same for years and it's always worked nicely.  We started using +.001" and +.002" oversized form taps a few years ago, to make up for the thickness the anodizing adds to the threads, and then some, and the problem went away.  Now at least we can measure screws and know exactly how they vary from "nominal" as opposed to making simply comparative measurements.

This new (to me) tidbit of information is just icing on the cake for you engineers out there, in the unlikely event that you were as ignorant of such things as I was a few minutes ago.  What I still don't understand is why we call a number eight screw a number eight screw instead of a .164" screw.  Too many digits?  But then you'd not have to remember gauge x .013" + .060".

Some of these oddities come down from the past in "organic" ways.  Firearm bullet and bore diameters are a good example.  Who the hell came up with .223, .308 or .452, as opposed to, say .200, .250, .300 .350, etc?  Some of these unlikely numbers, at least in part, come from the days of black powder, wrought iron barrels, soft lead bullets, and the manufacturing tolerances of yore.  The realistic tolerances back then were nowhere near what's possible now, and it resulted in some pretty weird numbers that became standards out of expediency and in response to backward compatibility issues.  I use a .454 ball (that number's still with us) in an 1850s .44 percussion revolver for example, because the oversized ball gets better purchase on the sides of the chamber and on the rifling.  We would now refer to a .454 bullet as caliber 45, though you were shooting it from what was called a .44 caliber pistol back in the 1860s, and the modern 45 cal bullets are .451" and .452".  Modern 44 caliber bullets are .429".  Huh?  I definitely need to learn more about this stuff.  In another .44 percussion revolver I have I use a .457" ball-- you want a ball that's bigger than the cylinder, and a cylinder that's bigger than the barrel groove diameter, so everything gets a sure, tight fit with the soft lead ball.

We still use grains as a unit of measurement, which came from some king somewhere telling us that the official definition of a pound was "seven thousand plump grains of wheat" (what poor saps had to count them, then recount them, and who verified their work?).  Shotgunners use the dram, which converts to the tidy number of 27.34375 grains, or the "dram equivalent", which is a charge of modern smokeless powder that generates about the same energy as that number of drams of black powder.

If we were to start all over and reinvent guns from the beginning today, we'd no doubt end up with simpler units and numbers, but the world doesn't work that way.  Each incremental development is built upon the previous one, and you don't immediately re-tool everyone in the business, make all the old versions unusable, and change all the established experience and data, just for that little increment of improvement.

Still, I keep saying someone needs to reinvent the computer OS (or the very concept of the computer OS-- maybe the very use of the term "OS" is thinking too much inside the box) from the beginning.  There is of course no basis-- no established school of thought or system of evaluation that would warrant such a claim.

When I bought my first computer (an IBM XT) I splurged and bought a 1200 baud modem instead of the 300 baud almost everyone else was buying. It was amazingly fast. It would download the posts from the BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems) faster than I could read. How could anyone have a need for anything faster than that?

It's a good thing we didn't have the anti-free speech bigot equivalents of the anti-gun Senators Feinstein and Schumer who stopped the sale of new magazines with more than a 10 round capacity. Otherwise we would be still stuck at 1200 baud instead of 15,500,000,000,000 baud:

To achieve these results, researchers from the Bell Labs facility in Villarceaux, France used 155 lasers, each operating at a different frequency and carrying 100 Gigabits of data per second. The team multiplied the number of lasers by their transmission rate of 100 Gigabits per second and then multiplied the 15.5-Terabit-per-second result by the 7,000-kilometer distance achieved. The combination of speed multiplied by distance expressed as bit per second.kilometers is a standard measure for high-speed optical transmission.

Of course I and others discovered the 1200 baud modems were way too slow when we started downloading porn--even if they were just 320 x 200 x 256 color .GIF files. Just think of the improvement in quality and speed at which we will be able get our porn once we have terabit data connections. That should come close to the needs for one of Quark's holosuites. We just need to get the holographic emitters working.

I guess it's just what socialists do--they disarm their victims. In Venezuela:

This envisages what Mendoza called a “specific prohibition under which any person cannot buy more than 50 bullets a year.” Mendoza, a middle-ranking member of Chávez’s governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), said the proposal represented “a form of reducing the parameters when it comes to the use of firearms and ammunition.”

The deputy said the proposal had been drawn up in collaboration with the scientific and investigative police, CICPC – the equivalent of the FBI in Venezuela – the state security service, DISIP, the National Guard, and the Procurator General’s Office. As far as is known, none of these organizations are known to be staffed by innocents.

Mendoza said that under the reform, “nobody will be able to carry more than two clips and these must not have more than 34 rounds or bullets for personal defense.”

It depends on what I'm practicing but I could go through 50 rounds (an entire years allotment of ammo in Venezuela) in less than 30 seconds. It certainly would make my practice sessions shorter and cheaper. Of course if such a law were implemented in my political jurisdiction I probably would spend my remaining ammo shooting for real instead of just practice.

Registration then confiscation. She barely conceals her agenda:

She added she would like to see a step-by-step programme involving all sales and transfers of air guns to be registered initially.

“After that there should be an amnesty when people can hand in air weapons that are not registered. After that we need to carry out universal registration with campaigns making it clear that air guns are not toys, they are lethal weapons that can kill.”

Don't just laugh and poke fun at "where Great Britain used to be". Remember that in Seattle you can go to jail for having a slingshot in your pocket even though you are legally carrying a .45 on your hip. The bigots will encroach on our rights in any way they can.

As reported elsewhere Kim and Connie sent out some emails to announce their return to the Internet. Here is most of mine:

From the "Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Roam The Internet" department:

Connie and I have decided to explore this strange new technology called "radio." Starting on Saturday October 3rd, we will begin a weekend Internet radio show on BlogTalkRadio.com.

The show will run on Saturday and Sunday evenings, at 7pm Eastern/6pm Central. You can find a BlogTalkRadio widget to listen to our "preview" show at our new site: www.kimandconnie.com.

We need help getting this off the ground, and a link or mention from you would be very much appreciated.

...

Kim
P.S. I still think this Internet thing is just a passing fad. Soon we'll be back to quills and parchments, as it should be.

There is also a possibility that Kim will be attending Boomershoot 2010. The stars have to align properly for him and a position has to open up. But the odds are probably better than 50-50.

Once again we see that a “no” tends to be far more effective against rapists, thieves, and other freelance thugs when it is spoken over the sights of a firearm.

Marko Kloos
you go, girl.
September 29, 2009
[Which, of course, reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by John Fogh.

H/T to Say Uncle.--Joe]

Do they think we won't catch them and rub their noses in their attempted deception? Or are they so stupid that they can't read the actual numbers? And they have the tag line "Real Stories. Real Honest. Real Moms".

The lady doth insist too much, methinks.

Here are the scare quotes:

More than 500 children die annually from accidental gunshots. Some shoot themselves, while others kill friends or siblings after discovering a gun.

Here are more scary stats: Americans own 200 million firearms, and 35 percent of homes contain at least one gun. Last year, a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns.

The problem is that according to the CDC we have this data (2006 is the most recent I found--see table 10):

So in order to arrive at "more than 500 children die annually" you would have to include "children" as old as 54 years old. Sure a lot of people want the government to treat people as children even at this age but it's lying to actually include them in your children totals.

The real number is 54 children per year instead of "more than 500". They are only off by a factor of 10.

So, assuming their 1.7 million number is right then the odds of one of those children in homes with loaded and unlocked guns accidentally being killed with a firearm is 54/1,700,000 or 1 in 31,481 (0.0032%) per year.

Gee... I wonder if they have an agenda. If they don't then why do they inflate the numbers by a factor of 10? Crap for brains and/or the truth is just too inconvenient for them? You decide.

Dave Workman explains:

That the local press has once again erroneously given the impression that the store has lost its FFL, when in actuality it is Borgelt’s license revocation that has been upheld, is one more reason for gun owners, and one frustrated firearms retailer, not to trust the news media.

This is one time the press has it coming.

The basic story is the previous owner of the Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply (the store from which Beltway Snipers stole the rifle they used) had his FFL revoked but the new owner is up and running just fine. The press is reporting the store lost it's FFL and implies it has been shut down.

Half-truth, full-truth, who cares? Not the mainstream media with their "professional" journalists.

On my latest trip to Idaho and back I listened to a bunch of the Vicious Circle podcasts. I'm in the middle of Vicious Circle 18 (Sucky Science Fiction Movies) right now but I thought I would mention that I was particular struck by what Breda had to say in Vicious Circle 16 (Estrogen Overload!) as she was explaining the controversy in the lesbian community between shag carpets and hardwood floors. At least I think that what she was talking about. Someone else asked about landing strips in the same context so maybe I got confused along the way somehow.

Speaking of SF... just tonight son James and I just finished watching the Stargate: Atlantis series. We liked it. I'm kind of sad that it is over. It was so much better than the three seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine we waded through before it.

While the president hasn’t proposed any specific gun control legislation, it’s also true that if every statement he’s ever made, every bill he’s ever supported and every position he’s ever taken during his entire political career were taken as a whole and proposed as legislation — which is not being done — then the gun owners would have something to fear.

But that’s not happening, for a couple of reasons. The Democrats have focused their attention on the economy. Also, Obama has moderated his views on these issues over the years. As a lawyer by training, he appears to understand the Second Amendment’s place in law, not as something to pay lip service to, but as one of the fundamental rights all Americans enjoy.

Danville Editorial Board
September 28, 2009
Worst kind of economic stimulus
[I agree President Obama has not been on the offense against gun owners since he took office. But before believing he has moderated his views on these issues I'm going to need some proof. Directing the DOJ to arrest and prosecute Federal, State, and local officials for violation of 18 USC 242 in regards to infringement of the 2nd Amendment would be a good start. Instead his cabinet is filled with people opposed to allowing citizens to exercise a specific enumerated right. I keep expecting him to "turn the dogs loose" on us.--Joe]

Daughter Kim and I made a quick run out to the Boomershoot site yesterday. We dropped 1200 surveyors stakes (that was all the builders supply had) for the Boomershoot 2010 targets. I'll get another 300 before the event.

I put up another solar panel for charging the batteries. The last time I was out there I concluded the existing panels were dead. But after disconnecting them and testing them a little more carefully I decided it must have just been a loose connection. The new panel puts out 6 W peak. The three old ones, which are each about the same size as the new one, combined only put out 4.2 W peak. Plus the new one works much better on cloudy days.

Kim planted a bunch of grass where I had tore up the ground with the backhoe and dozer. Then she unloaded the stakes and organized the pile of stuff we store under a tarp.

We winterized the pump and we hauled away some old potassium chlorate barrels.

In a couple weeks we'll go out there again for a private party we are putting on but we are probably about done with stuff until next spring.

Every part. Every last little bit of it, from its inception, from the thinking behind its inception, to all of its variants, to every attempt to implement it in any form, any time and anywhere it's been foisted upon anyone. I consider socialism to be more offensive, more disgusting, more sickening, more dangerous, more deadly and more virulent than any disease-- more destructive than any force known on Earth. Sold to the unwary as the warm-hearted answer to the suffering and problems we all face in life, it is the poison pill, cleverly slipped into all our forms of sustenance: our very food and drink, our homes, our schools and our institutions by the sick, the envious, the jealous and the hateful, who would be our masters and we their playthings.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
September 2, 2009
In response to the question, "What part of socialism do you disagree with?"
[One friend was a bit more succinct but only for those that understood the fundamentals, when he told me it was like a sugar pill that caused cancer twenty years later. "Here, try it! It's sweet. Just a little bit..."--Joe]

A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt...If the game runs sometime against us at home, we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.

Thomas Jefferson
[President Obama and supporters, please meet my hero, Thomas Jefferson.--Joe]

Windows mobile 6.5 will be out soon. Windows Mobile 7.0 will come out later.

I'm working on 7.0 and it looks very nice. I too was worried about 6.5 until I saw it for the first time last week (competely different team so it's not quite so weird that I didn't see it sooner). 6.5 is a big step forward and I am much less worried about it now.

The release of 7.0 will make me much happier with our position in the mobile phone market.

That is all... Back to work...

While I approve of law enforcement finding and disrupting criminals before they can carry out their criminal acts I find it a little bit disconcerting that in this case the criminals/terrorists had to be led by the hand to actually commit (what they thought were) criminal acts:

Two men who professed devotion to Al Qaeda -- one a convert to Islam, the other a Jordanian native -- were charged Thursday with plotting to blow up buildings in Illinois and Texas.

In both cases, the men thought they were working with Al Qaeda operatives when they were really working with undercover federal agents.

One man, according to authorities, planted what he thought was an explosive outside a Dallas skyscraper, while the other parked a van, supposedly armed with a bomb, outside a federal courthouse in Springfield, Ill. The devices were fakes.

...

The FBI had a drug informant become friendly with Finton, according to the complaint. The informant told agents that Finton had talked about wanting to get terrorist training and to fight in Gaza against Israelis. Agents then worked to set up an "opportunity for action that we controlled," began recording encounters with him and put him in touch with an undercover agent who told Finton he was an Al Qaeda operative.

In a July conversation, Finton allegedly told the agent he was considering attacks on "government buildings, banks and police stations." His hope was that an attack would cause the U.S. military to withdraw from conflicts overseas.

"Finton said attacking the FBI office would be great, because he had no love for the police, so that would not bother him a bit," according to the affidavit. He allegedly proposed bombing the federal building in Springfield in July with a backpack bomb or an explosive in a vehicle.

In August, the agent told Finton that the plan had been approved by his supervisors in Al Qaeda and had Finton make a videotaped message that supposedly was to be shown to organization leaders, including Osama bin Laden.

They apparently weren't capable of building their own bombs so the FBI did it (fake ones of course) for them. And encouraged them with fake approval from the highest level within the terrorist organization. It sounds to me like the FBI was walking a fine line very close to entrapment.

This sounds like what the radicals of the 1960s said about how easy it was to identify the FBI infiltrators--they were the ones encouraging people to commit crimes.

The Second Amendment is a constitutional right, not a carnival ride. How could the right to keep and bear arms ever be exercised in Rachel Maddow's world, a world in which "keeping" arms wouldn't be allowed? Would Ms. Maddow also like to see a world in which the First Amendment could only be exercised under the bright lights of a television studio? I suppose since she has her own show, she might not object to that either.

Wayne LaPierre
NRA Executive Director
September 24, 2009
[This tends to be an all too common theme--the constitution only applies if it doesn't get in the way what someone wants the government to do. That's not the way it is supposed to work and in fact things get really screwed up when this is the mode of operation.--Joe]

Bitter and Sebastian are teasing us on Twitter:

bitterb Oh wow. I just did a little Googling and found a pretty sizeable story on MAIG. Wait until tomorrow kiddies...

SebastianSH Sometimes in politics, the prairie dog sticks his head out of the hole and presents an easy shot. Tomorrow we eat prairie dog stew!

I'm looking forward to it. I expect it will appear here.

Update: It's out, "That’s right, Nacheman admitted that in his position with MAIG, he also represents the Brady Bunch and that they both seek to accomplish the same agenda."

Reports are coming in that it went well in California this morning.

David Hardy has some news but the good stuff is here (I cherry picked the mini-posts):

Why can’t we assume without deciding that the second amendment is incorporated? What would change? Alameda still floundering.

Why isn’t this a summary judgement case? Apparently since guns aren’t posessed at a gun show for self defense then Heller doesn’t apply… Weird.

Alameda has serious foot in mouth. Just agreed that only dimwitted judges would not accept incorporation arguments.

Alameda says Heller does not guarantee guns! Judge is dragging her through the mud.

What if fairground isn’t a sensitive place? Then we would have to declare ordinance null (judge question and statement) What is sensitive about a fairgrounds? Is every government property a sensitive place? Schools and govt buildings. Invitees who don’t know eachother, thus it is a sensitive place. Gun shows cause liability problems, look at fairground shooting that caused 11 liability lawsuits.

Oh no, we had one shooting at the fairgrounds! 11 people, 4 of them children! What about shootings in office buildings? Gun show was not in place when the shooting happened. Gun shows in conjunction with other events did not cause problems. Open carry us allowed! Metal detectors to detect illegal concealed firearms. County has no problem with firearms carried for self defense. Alameda is screwed!

Alameda GETTING HAMMERED! Legislature can ban guns tomorrow based on her antiquated case law.

Update: Via Dave Hardy I find we now have audio of the proceedings.

Update2: Also via Dave Hardy we have a decision (sort of).

I'm trying to do my part to stimulate the economy by upping the number of rounds I'm putting down range each month and getting new shooters to the range. I figure we just about have to do it. The ammo factories hired new people and if we don't keep buying the ammo they will get laid off, right?

Here's the background story:

Bullet-makers are working around the clock, seven days a week, and still can't keep up with the nation's demand for ammunition.

...

"We are working overtime and still can't keep up with the demand," said Al Russo, spokesman for North Carolina-based Remington Arms Company, which makes bullets for rifles, handguns and shotguns. "We've had to add a fourth shift and go 24-7. It's a phenomenon that I have not seen before in my 30 years in the business."

Americans usually buy about 7 billion rounds of ammunition a year, according to the National Rifle Association. In the past year, that figure has jumped to about 9 billion rounds, said NRA spokeswoman Vickie Cieplak.

Nine billion rounds in one year with about 80 million gun owners in the U.S. works out to about only about 112 rounds per gun owner. I went through that many rounds both last night and the night before. I'll go through probably another 200 rounds tonight and then another 150 on Sunday. What the heck is going on here? I'm figure I'm just doing my civic duty here and it turns out I'm doing the job of about 100 other people as well.

If every gun owner were going through just 100 rounds a month that would be nearly 100 billion rounds a year. That is a way to stimulate the economy and have something to show for it afterward--an armed and well practiced citizenry and respectful politicians.

Via email from Anthony who said, "I am amazed, no SHOCKED you have not blogged on this yet."

Yeah, yeah. I'm getting slow in my old age. That and preparing for a pistol match on Sunday.

Here's how you prepare for a sporting event:

India's cricketers at the Champions Trophy in South Africa are being encouraged by their coach to have sex to boost their on-field performance, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The benefits of sex feature prominently in a secret document circulated among players by coach Gary Kirsten and mental conditioning expert Paddy Upton, the Hindustan Times said in a front-page report.

It came as India take on arch-rivals Pakistan in their first Champions Trophy match in Centurion on Saturday.

The large-selling broadsheet, which claimed to have a copy of the document, said the relevant chapter was headlined "Does sex increase performance?".

"Yes it does, so go ahead and indulge," the document said, before detailing the benefits of a good sex life and even suggesting "going solo" if no partners were available.

"From a physiological perspective, having sex increases testosterone levels, which cause an increase in strength, energy, aggression and competitiveness," the document said.

"Conversely, not having sex for a period of a few months causes a significant drop in testosterone levels in both males and females, with the corresponding passiveness and decrease in aggression."

The document quotes Tim Noakes, a professor and sports scientist at the University of Cape Town, Kirsten's home town, as saying that "sex was not a problem, but being up till 2:00 am, probably having a few drinks at a bar while trying to pick someone up, on the eve of a game, almost always was."

The document helpfully suggests a solution.

"If you want sex but do not have someone to share it with, one option is to go solo whilst imagining you have a partner, or a few partners, who are as beautiful as you wish to imagine," the document said.

"No pillow talk and no hugging required. Just roll over and go to sleep."

Dr. Joe's Cure for Everything is validated yet again.

Tuesday I reported on taking Priyanka to the range for her first experience shooting guns. It turns out that her officemate overheard us talking and asked to go with us. He had never shot a gun before either and really wanted to try it.

I didn't really want to take two new shooters to the range at the same time when I only had one small booth to work in. So I offered to take him to the range on Wednesday (last night).

It's always interesting to see what different students have trouble with and how to come up with an exercise to get them past it. Priyanka had trouble shooting fast and accurately. Shooting slow and accurate wasn't a problem. By moving the target very close she could exercise the "fast" aspect without having to worry about the accurate part so much. Then when the target went back out to a more normal distance she was able to combine the two skills she had learned.

Andrei had problems with pulling his shots low and left. Because of the Crimson Trace laser on the Ruger Mark II I could see that he was aiming well but just as the gun would go off it would dip low and left. Dry fire exercises enable him to see the problem as well. I told him to do most of the squeezing of the grip with his weak hand and concentrate on just moving his trigger finger so his dominate hand didn't grasp at the same time as the trigger finger moved. Plus, pay less attention to having a good sight picture and more attention to getting a surprise trigger break. It was hard for him but more and more shots started going where they belonged.

After putting a 100 or so rounds of .22 LR down range he wanted to try the Gun Blog 45. Here he is looking for the little knob on the side of the magazine (like on the Ruger Mark II) to push the follower down:

I didn't let him struggle for long and soon he was getting pretty good results with the .45:

Andrei is originally from Canada but is currently working for a company in California (this company is partnering with Microsoft on a project so he is in Redmond for a while). He asked about how he could buy a gun. What does he have to do? What kind of guns could he buy? I told him what I knew about the gun laws in Canada, California, and Washington and told him that California was more oppressive than Washington and Canada was much more oppressive but he could still have handguns in Canada if he put in enough effort. He said he wanted to stay in the U.S.

I had put on my holster and gun (Gun Blog 45 and the Blackhawk holster I got last year when I went to summer camp) as soon as we got in the car which I had parked off campus. As we left the range he commented on concealed carry and so I explained licenses, open carry, and the laws in Washington versus California. He seemed quite interested and eager to learn more. Next week is not available because Barb will be visiting but if he is still in town the week after I'll offer to take him to the range again.

Handing your permit under you license is a purposeful and proven psychological manipulation that produces better outcomes. There is no doubt in my mind at all about that. Maybe 1 time in 30 interactions has it produced the opposite affect and even then all that happened was I got the ticket I deserved in the first place. The other one ticket I received was given to me with no hostile intent because of the gun or permit, they just didn't factor in at all.

Telling an officer you have a permit or gun WILL produce anxiety because the officer now has to react quickly to new data and it throws their script. He can't just ignore verbal interactions or choose to act on the data at his own pace. Officers crave control, telling him he must deal with anything new and not on his plan makes him feel he is losing control. He will respond aggressively/dominantly as a default reaction to lack of control. An officer finding out you are carrying after interacting with you for an extended period will cause him to feel you have been holding out and been one-up on him without his knowledge.

Greg Hamilton
Chief Instructor Insights Training
August 24, 2009
From the Insights Training Center email list on the proper interaction with the police when you are carrying a concealed weapon and have a concealed weapons permit.
[I have used this method for years with good results. I'm strongly inclined to believe Greg has the psychology correct.--Joe]

I have taken something like eight classes (and some of those were taken twice) from Insights. I have put my wife and kids through some of the classes as well. I have been very impressed with their training.

Contrary to the stereotype of gun owners being stupid and just wanting to kill and destroy stuff I was always impressed with how smart the instructors were and how they taught us to avoid confrontations before deploying lethal force. I have been very, very impressed with how much thought they have given to the topic of self defense. They have distilled the concepts and present them in succinct form that you almost instantly recognize as, "Wow! That right!" Examples of such are some of the quotes of Greg Hamilton and John Fogh I have in my collection (not a complete listing):

• The combat philosophy
• Complying with a mugger/rapists demands
• Sheep, wolfs, and sheepdogs
• Stopping power
• Taking the fight out
• When to shoot
• How many shots
• Universal hand signals
• The proper fighting mindset
• Attitude to avoid being prey
• Dealing with an active shooter
• Increasing the effectiveness of your ammo
• Why the world needs guns
• How to say, "Please don't rape me"

Sean Flynn is similarly impressed with Hamilton and company.

Today Kevin Kerkam, also an instructor there, contributed a blog post that is another one of those insights (pun intended) that makes you think, "Of course! I should have thought of that but I know I never would have."

Two views.

A sheriff:

Many gun owners spend a lot of time polishing their weapons, stocking ammunition - whether for hunting or home protection - and logging target practice hours.

But if their guns were lost or stolen, many of those people would have a hard time getting them back for one minor reason: They have no record of the weapons' serial numbers.

Lincoln County Sheriff Steve Rushing said registering a weapon with the county can be a good way to log the gun's identification for future reference.

"It's a great way to keep up with the serial number," Rushing said. "When people get them stolen or lost and don't have them, we can enter them on (the National Crime Information Center) and everywhere else as stolen. It's a good proactive way to keep up with your guns."

I prefer an encrypted file on a CD buried somewhere in Idaho to accomplish the same task. But that's just me.

Robb Allen has another demonstration of the benefits.

The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government.

Milton Friedman
[So... Why is it that so many people demand more and more centralized government? Is it that facts are irrelevant to people? Is it that despite a hundred years of statist and socialist failure people still don't see the pattern? Or is it that Labrat nailed it with Parasite memes and monkeyspheres?

And if you don't have good answers to those questions I'll still give you an A+ if you can tell me a simple and clean way to dramatically reduce the size of government.--Joe]

As I said yesterday I had arranged to take a new shooter to the range this evening.

She was a little nervous and at first you could even see her hands shake when she loaded the magazine of the Ruger Mark II. When she did some dry fire exercises I could see the gun shake as well. It wasn't all nervousness though. She has very slender arms and the longer she held the gun out at arms length the more it shook and the more she bent her elbows.

Still, when she fired her first shots at a about 10 feet away they were all "in the black":

After several ordinary targets I put up a slightly used USPSA target and said, "This is a bad guy." Here is the A-zone. Keep all your shots in the A-zone while shooting as fast as you can.

She had some problems. Many of the shots were going way low. I moved the target in very close about two feet from the muzzle and told her to point and shoot as fast as she could--the bad guy was very close. She shot fast and all the bullets were A-zone hits.

She wanted the target further away so gave her another slightly used USPSA target and she moved it to about 15 feet away and opened fire: 

This time nearly all the shots were solid A-zone hits and she had a big smile on her face (Update: she didn't like any of the pictures of her face so that photo has been removed).

I showed her my Gun Blog 45, hollow point bullets, FMJ bullets, and emptied a couple magazines. One at slow speed with maximum accuracy and one as fast as I could shoot and keep them on target. She declined to shoot the .45.

I showed her a S&W .22 revolver and let her shoot that. She much preferred the semi-auto pistol.

We had a long talk about self-defense and "who needs a gun". She explained that in India it is very difficult to get a gun and very few people have them. Here many people have them and people use them to hurt other people. Why is it that people can get a gun so easily here?

I told her it was a choice everyone needs to make for themselves. She lives across the street from work and goes to work and gets off during daylight hours. It is in a nice part of town. She has no abusive ex-boyfriends. Other people may go to work or get off work very late at night in a very bad part of town. Everyone needs to make their own decisions. I told her of one of my first students who was a very petite middle-aged woman who told me she was a judge and some of her "customers" were very unhappy with her decisions. She had seen some of these people watch her as she left the courthouse. She had never considered owning a gun before let alone carry one when she went to/from work or when she went to the store. She sometimes traveled on her job and would spend the night alone in a motel many miles from home. She and her husband decided she needed to have a concealed carry permit, a gun, and training. She bought a gun and I taught her to use it defensively. The sheriff issued her a permit and she now carries the gun. I think she made the right decision. I told her of the person searching for "what means of self defence will you use as a woman when you are been raped by a man" who found my blog. And I told her of John Fogh's advice for such a situation.

I told her of my Just One Question and what the numbers were on criminal use, defensive use, and suicide. I told her how a gun made it possible for a weak 85 year-old woman to defend herself against a large young man.

She said she had a wonderful time and I dropped her off at her apartment--she took all the targets with her.

I never imagined I would even just hold a gun in my hands.

Priyanka
September 22, 2009
[Priyanka is from India. She is my mentee at work and now at the range.--Joe]

When I read something like this in my referral logs I want to reach out to them and give whatever advice I can:

Domain Name		newcom-intl.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address		204.14.45.# (Karib Cable Kelcom International)
ISP		NewCom International
Location		Continent  :  South America Country  :  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines  (Facts) State/Region  :  Saint George City  :  Kingstown Lat/Long  :  13.1333, -61.2167 (Map) Distance  :  3,954 miles
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Firefox Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3
Javascript		version 1.5
Monitor		Resolution  :  1024 x 768 Color Depth  :  24 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 21 2009 9:44:19 pm
Last Page View		Sep 21 2009 9:44:19 pm
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co... by a man.I want to
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		what means of self defence will you use as a woman when you are been raped by a man.i want to
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffm...date,2009-04-13.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffm...date,2009-04-13.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 21 2009 9:44:19 pm
Visit Number		599,244

Send me an email or even call me (208-301-4254).

Tomorrow evening I'm taking a young woman to the range. She has never shot a gun before. I'm nearly certain she asked to do this because she is adventuresome and thinks it might be exciting to shoot a gun (she wants to try some explosives next month). But I'll be explaining the utility of multiple jacketed hollow point bullets and the advice of John Fogh while I'm at it.

Via email from Chet.

What? Do they only have enough money for food or something? I thought they could always find money to fund their hate of capitalism and buy more Kalashnikov rifles. But perhaps not:

Russia's largest small arms manufacturer, the Izhevsk Mechanical Works [Izhmash], could be declared bankrupt. It became know today that a corresponding petition has been received by the arbitration court of [the Republic of] Udmurtia from the enterprise.

...

This largest Kalashnikov assault rifle manufacturer now stands idle. No state order means no money to pay employees, nor to repay debts to creditors.

This Christmas I'm going shopping for the girls at GlamGuns.com where I can pick up stuff like this:

It's never to early to learn demolition. Hard targets are no longer a challenge with the Glambo Signature Series EZ-Boom Oven. Locked out of the clubhouse? Fight back! Includes enough of her patented, quick-setting mix to make one pound of plastique and will provide your child with hours of fun. (Safety armor not included.)

My girls just loved "My little Pony" but now that they are all grown up it's time for grown up toys fully loaded with nostalgia:

The Glambo Signature Series "My Little Pony" M4A1 carbine with forward handgrip and AN-PVS4 night vision sight. This fully functional weapon fires standard 5.56mm ammunition -- great for those AR-15 fans with extra ammo lying around the house or even extra parts! (Note: the full-auto selection has been disabled in this model in favor of three-round-burst. This product cannot be shipped to California.) The perfect way to introduce your little princess to the wonders of nocturnal wet-work!

There are also Hilton Handcuffs and Martha's Mines--just the thing for stocking stuffers at the Huffman-Scott compound and bunker complex.

H/T to Kris who sent me the link in an email.

On the evening of September 9, President Barack Obama was at the U.S. Capitol preparing to address a joint session of Congress on the subject of health care reform. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Joshua Bowman, 28, of Falls Church, Virginia, attempted to drive his Honda Civic into a secure area near the Capitol. U.S. Capitol Police stopped him and, searching his car, found a rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition. Bowman was arrested on the spot and charged with two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. An Associated Press article noted that “Bowman’s intentions were unclear.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington has stated that they have decided against prosecuting Bowman on more serious charges. It is difficult to imagine, however, what legitimate reason there might have been for bringing that kind of firepower to the Capitol when so many important elected officials were gathered in one place.

...

How many other individuals carrying guns at political events (either openly or concealed) have disturbing criminal histories? And why is the media already losing interest in what should be headline news?

Michael Beard
September 12, 2009
Gunning for the President
[First of all there wasn't anyone "gunning for the President". The guy accidentally drove across a political boundary which made his firearm possession a crime. Law enforcement investigated and decided not to prosecute. It's no different than if a black person had stepped into a "whites only" restaurant in the deep south 60 years ago and quickly apologized and tried to leave. Prosecutors gave him a pass because he was trying to play by the rules and got tripped up by a law that shouldn't have existed to begin with and through no intentional fault of his own.

"Disturbing criminal histories"? If the legislature had wanted to make drunk driving, disorderly conduct, or urination in public grounds to loose your right to keep and bear arms they should have gotten the votes to pass such a law and defend it in court. Until they do Mr. Beard can be as "disturbed" as he wants to be and I don't care. We are a supposedly a nation of laws not beholding to how "disturbed" he is.

I suspect the thing that disturbs Mr. Beard the most is the media is losing interest in making headlines of someone obeying the law. That's not "news". And I have to say, it's about fricking time.--Joe]

I appears there is an interesting new show coming soon to a security theater near you:

First it was shoes, then water bottles and snow globes.

Now dried baby formula, makeup, talcum and other powders have joined the long list of seemingly innocuous household items drawing closer scrutiny from airport screeners as potential security threats.

Federal authorities haven't banned powders toted by passengers or set limits on the size or amount they are allowed to carry on planes in their hand luggage.

But the Transportation Security Administration is now paying closer attention to common powders and has outfitted O'Hare, Midway and other airports around the country with new kits to test them for explosives. Passengers should be aware that after belongings are X-rayed, TSA officers may test a small sample of any powder in their possession.

I wonder if my post contributed to that. I know it got some attention by "government employees".

If it was my fault I'm not going to say I am sorry. One of the ways you get people to rethink their security systems is to overload them with false positives. If I could only demonstrate that it were relatively easy to bring down a plane by grinding up you hair into a fine powder and making an improvised explosive device out of it using a couple coins as tools...

Sometimes it boggles my mind just how stupid some people can be and still be able to write complete sentences and breathe--and apparently at the same time. Case in point:

Free marketers don’t care much for bank bailouts so long as they’ve gotten their money out the bank before it fails.

But when it’s health care? I think you will find that teabaggers everywhere will have a very different perspective when they find themselves out there alone with no way to pay for their family’s medical costs.

Who will need the save the day when this happens? The government will – and that means a single-payer system.

Whether the result fits your ideology or not, the numbers would seem to make clear that it is only a matter of time before private health insurance prices itself out of the market, leaving only the government with the capability to insure the nation’s health.

"Leaving only the government with the capability"? And just where does he think the government will get the money that private health insurance companies and individuals couldn't?

When I used to play chess a lot (high school and college) it was very rare that someone couldn't see pretty clearly two and usually three moves in advance. And the better players would have a pretty fair view out six or seven moves on some critical branches. But this guy apparently can't see even one move in advance. What would you call someone like this? In my chess playing days we would call those people losers.

Update: He makes an "interesting" comment in response to another commenter to his article:

I rarely watch CNBC and, anyone who reads this post knows I wouldn’t be caught dead watching Fox.

He admits he studiously ignores data considered to be fair and accurate by millions of people? This isn't someone concerned with knowing the truth. This is someone who has a deep and profound commitment to some sort of cult.

On my last trip to Idaho from the Seattle area got caught up on the Gun Nuts Radio podcasts. I think it was Breda that said in one of them that she didn't see what the big deal was with carrying a gun. She asked (IIRC), "Why should it be any different than carrying a cell phone or flashlight on your belt?"

Good question. I shoot probably 10,000 rounds a year but I don't participate in anywhere near that many phone calls or turn on the flashlight (I carry all three on my belt most of the time). By some measures it could be said that I use my gun far more than my cell phone.

Americans buy between five and nine billion rounds of ammunition each year yet there are only about 10,000 murders and 700 accidental deaths by gunshot each year. Something on the order of 0.0002% of those rounds of ammo result in the illegal death of someone. I wonder what the percentage of telephone calls are involved in illegal activity? My bet is that even if you were to use "criminal use of ammunition" the rate of phone call crime is much higher than for ammunition as well. And the ammunition death rate versus the involvement of cars in accidental deaths makes cars look like a guaranteed death sentence. Yet there are very few people trying to ban cars.

And another thing... why do we have enhanced sentencing for crimes involving a gun but not enhanced sentencing for crimes involving cell phones or cars? Isn't it unconstitutional to have enhanced sentences for blacks and Jews? So why enhanced sentences for gun owners?

I think there are more than a few anti-rights advocates I will start referring to as "the woman with the earrings".

Linoge
September 18, 2009
uncannily appropriate
[You must read the rest of the post for the context--unless you remember the woman with the earrings at the party in the book Atlas Shrugged.

There is a reason the sales of this book skyrocketed last year.--Joe]

Four minutes, 365 pictures:

See also here for the best as stills.

Awesome job Xenia.

This must be Greg Nickels' desperate parting shot at gun owners who worked hard to make sure that he not survive the primary election last month. The proposal is blatantly illegal.

Alan Gottlieb
September 18, 2009
Mayor proposes gun ban at city-park facilities
[I would like to remind, soon to be, ex-mayor Greg Nickels of this post. I wish that Federal prosecutors would file charges for violation of 18 USC 242 the day after the signs go up.

See also Ry's post and the Second Amendment Foundation news release.

I'm doubling the amount of money I donate to SAF each month through payroll deductions. That money is matched by Microsoft.--Joe]

You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets, in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if we're the generation that is going to see it come about.

Ronald Reagan
[I'm reminded of this by the articled titled Iran reportedly able to make nuclear bomb and the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants Israel wiped off the map.--Joe]

The Brady Campaign Blog has a post up about a gun rights activist and concealed carry permit holder. Basically it outlines what a slimy guy he is.

This is new territory for the Brady Campaign.

With so many of us and so few of them simply by the sheer number of people in the "tails of the bell curve" that we don't to be our "poster children" this could be somewhat painful for us. It turns out they have a few "skeletons in the closet" as well but there isn't going to be nearly as many of them.

I don't think that is an appropriate way to play the game. The political battle should be fought over ideas and data rather than the criminal convictions and/or drinking problems of the messengers. But politics is almost never a clean fight.

For us the lesson to be learned is to make sure people that are going to be getting the attention of the press and/or police are people that can stand up to public scrutiny because the Brady people may now have a policy of making sure our activists get more attention than they expected in manner that is less than endearing to the public.

I needed some repair work done on my STI Eagle 5.1 and from my phone call to them I expected to have it back in about 10 days. It arrived at their factory on August 12^th. I received it back yesterday. That was exactly 35 days.

I started getting a hint that things weren't going so well about a week after they got it when I got a call and instead of them telling me it was on it's way back David told me he had just briefly looked at it and, "that's a really old gun". Hmm... And your point is? It turns out there was far more wrong with the gun than I knew and that a lot of things were built different that they were when the gun was new. That meant some replacement parts weren't just drop in. They were going to have to do some machining on the frame. Stuff that wasn't going to be covered under warranty. Fine, give me an estimate and then I'll decide.

Nearly a week after that on August 31^st I had an exact amount and sent David (yes, to him personally rather than STI) a check for $231 for the non-warranty work. He also told me there were things wrong that he couldn't really fix and but it would still be good enough for "What we down here in Texas call a 'truck gun'". Great. My STI is now a "truck gun". But for $231 I would have functional gun that would be far better than any other gun I could buy for $231.

To be fair the stuff he didn't want to work on were things that I had long suspected were messed up by the original gunsmith (who shall remain nameless because he is no longer working as a gunsmith anyway) who built it from a kit. Nearly the first thing I did when I got my hands on the gun back in 1998 was check the slide to frame fit when the gun was in battery. I was shocked and disappointed that there was quite a bit of movement. I looked up in surprise and the gunsmith said that he had asked me if I was going to carry the gun or just shoot it in competition. I told him both. So he made the tolerances much greater than a competition only gun. He said that he was taught that a carry gun needed to have looser tolerances so it would be more reliable. I asked if it could be tightened up and he told me that for all practical purposes the answer was no. Rather than rejecting the gun due to a misunderstanding I took it. I really couldn't complain about the accuracy. It wasn't what I expected but there were very few stages which I competed in for which the accuracy was a limiting factor.

But that wasn't the only problem with the gun.

The lugs for the barrel link broke on the original STI barrel after only about 20K rounds. The gunsmith figured it had to be a defective barrel. STI didn't see it that way and I paid for new, non-STI barrel to be installed. A few years later I told someone else about this and he told me the only way that break occurs is if the barrel was installed wrong. David, at STI, told me the "new" barrel was installed incorrectly as well but it isn't likely to break--it just doesn't lock up quite right and the accuracy is degraded.

So, I took the gun to the range tonight and it functioned well. The new safety fits better than the old ones (I had the first gunsmith replace a one that broken once before) ever did but it required some machining on the frame to get the new safety to fit. I'm glad I didn't try to do it myself because I don't have access to a milling machine to do the type of cuts that were required--besides not knowing that the frames were built different now and that the frame cuts were required instead of removing material from the safety.

I'm a little annoyed at STI for taking five weeks when I expected something closer to one week. And the non-warranty work being done via a direct payment to David is a little unprofessional. But except for the slide to frame fit everything on the gun looks very good to me. I'll probably continue to use the gun in competition for quite a while longer. Maybe next summer I'll be able to justify (money, it's a lot of money) a new STI (Eagle 5.0 or maybe an Eagle 6.0--any suggestions?) and put this one "behind the seat of the truck".

Regardless of my irritation with STI I still say--I shoot a STI gun in competition, I carry a STI gun and you should too.

I have an expired Utah license and because it has been expired too long I have to reapply as a new applicant. I'm seriously thinking of taking this Utah Concealed Firearm Permit Class on September 26^th.

Anyone else want to show up at the class and hang out with me? It's just four hours on a Saturday.

Update: I was reminded by Barb that her schedule is changing and I will be in Idaho on this weekend. And with her new schedule none of the Utah classes listed match my schedule.

Bitter and Sebastian (along with the Apex of the Triangle of Death) have been kicking ass and keeping score while going after Bloomberg's collection of bigots against gun owners.

Here is a letter from another mayor (from Vancouver Washington) to drop out of the group once they realized they had been duped (via WA-CCW email list--Thanks to Dr. Brown for doing the all the work):

Subject: RE: Royce, say it ain't so!
To: rkba2001@comcast.net

Dr. Brown,

Please see below my letter of resignation from the Mayor's Against Illegal Guns coalition that I sent last Friday:

Thank you!

I became a member of Mayor's Against Illegal Guns based on my belief that this group would help in the fight against criminal gun use. After all, who isn't for making our communities safer by getting illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of the wrong people? After careful consideration and after listening to the concerns of many of my constituents I have come to the conclusion that some of your organization's statements and actions can be construed as infringing on the rights of legitimate gun owners. Because of this, I request that you remove my name from your web site and from your membership lists.

As a lifetime gun owner and user and as a 27-year veteran of the U.S. Army, I strongly value our constitutional right to bear arms and would never support anything that restricts that right. Please know that while I am withdrawing my membership from your organization, I will continue to work with our local law enforcement officials on the problem of criminals illegally obtaining and using guns to commit crimes.

Sincerely,

ROYCE E. POLLARD
Mayor
America's Vancouver

The headline reads, "Sen. Murray`s Anti-Gun Bigotry Shows in Amtrak Debate, Says CCRKBA." The news release goes on to say:

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is once again demonstrating her disdain for gun
owners and their rights by opposing an amendment to her Amtrak funding
legislation that would allow firearms to be carried in baggage aboard trains,
the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

"Patty Murray evidently has a short memory span," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan
Gottlieb. "Has she already forgotten what happened to her friend, Seattle Mayor
Greg Nickels, in the primary because of his extremist anti-gun philosophy?
Surely she knows about Tuesday`s primary election results in New York City,
where anti-gunner Richard Aborn came in last in a three-way race for Manhattan
prosecutor by running on his gun control record."

Murray is opposing an amendment, added to her Amtrak bill by Sen. Roger Wicker
(R-MS), that would allow train travelers to transport firearms in their luggage,
provided the guns are declared at check-in and they are locked up for transport.
This is no different than flying with firearms, Gottlieb noted, "and people do
that every day."

"The amendment passed 68-30," Gottlieb noted, "and Murray`s opposition shows she
is way out of the mainstream on this issue. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid supports the measure. People used to take firearms on trains all the time.
Someone should tell the senator that constitutional rights don`t end at the
Amtrak boarding platform."

Murray argues that the amendment would be too costly and time-consuming, because
Amtrak would have to create a process for checking and tracking guns.

"That`s a bogus argument," Gottlieb countered, "and she knows it. The
Transportation Security Administration already has that process down pat. There
is no need to reinvent the wheel. That option has apparently not occurred to
her, or maybe it has and she just can`t get beyond her narrow gun prohibitionist
viewpoint.

"Amtrak has been losing money for years," Gottlieb concluded. "Maybe it`s
because American gun owners won`t travel with a carrier that treats them like
outcasts. Maybe gun owners will return that sentiment when Murray runs for
re-election next year."

Although she is considered the one of the "dullest knives in the drawer" (see also here for possible euphemisms) she hasn't had much trouble getting relected and this vote against gun owners probably won't be all that detrimental either. But it's nice to remind her and others that we are not happy with her and if someone else were to be a little more tolerant of diversity we would probably give them our support.

I get this type of email so you don't have to:

I'm writing looking to connect with those that took any classes with me this past Sunday.

ThreeSomes and Group Sex Play - discussion
Butt Sex - informal discussion
G-Spot and Female Ejaculation - interactive, couples only

In this context one has wonder what the meaning of "connect" is.

Regardless, the answer is "No". I did not take any of those classes last Sunday. Barb and I were doing other things near Mount Hood (don't let your dirty mind go there) that weekend.

Via email from Kris:

The power to do good is also the power to do harm.

Milton Friedman
[There is also a variation of this attributed to Barry Goldwater (probably false), Thomas Jefferson (probably false), and Gerald Ford (probably correct), "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Regardless of who should get the credit the idea is correct and people advocating for health care involvement by the government need to realize the terrible risk they are advocating we all take by giving the government control of our health. They can "give" but they can, and will, take it away as well.

Similar cases can be made for government involvement in weapons ownership, the banking industry, and just about anything the government was not given specific enumerated powers in the constitution.--Joe]

An atomic blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways.

Salvor Hardin
[This is as true today as it was in the future. Something both tyrants and "Threepers" should keep in mind.--Joe]

It appears the FBI and the ATF can't seem to play well together:

Agents of the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives are feuding over bomb investigations — racing each other to crime scenes, failing to share information and refusing to train together, according to a draft report obtained by The Associated Press.

The report says Justice Department bosses have repeatedly failed to fix the problem.

The Justice Department's Inspector General, Glenn Fine, has drafted a preliminary report on the two agencies' repeated squabbles to claim jurisdiction in investigations of explosives incidents across the country — from Times Square in New York City to Arizona and the West Coast.

The most recent documented spat came last December when the FBI protested a local prosecutor's request to use the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to investigate a blast that killed a local bomb technician in Woodburn, Ore.

FBI and ATF supervisors "tend to deploy their employees to the larger, more sensational explosives incidents, sometimes racing each other to be the first federal agency on the scene and disputing upon arrival which agency should lead the investigation," according to a draft version of the report.

It seems to me the Justice Department bosses are overlooking the obvious simple solution to the problem. If they would just look in the Constitution they would find they don't have the authority for either the FBI or the ATF. If they would just disband both organizations and let the state law enforcement organizations handle the issues there wouldn't be these squabbles between the two illegitimate siblings.

But the Justice Department is just like any other welfare mother and the more children it can bring into the world the more money it can justify taking from the tax payers. It's time to kick the bums out and demand they make an honest living.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via email from Kris:

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

http://www.explosionsandboobs.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is during my modifications:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I keep hearing what I think are their voices:

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

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

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

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

As the product description on Amazon says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H/T to Ride Fast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the AK-47:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will not disarm.

You cannot convince us.

You cannot intimidate us.

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

But remember, we'll shoot back.

And we are not going away.

Your move.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the comments too.

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

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

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

Go ahead, be my guest.

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

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

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

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

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

In the first eight months of this year there have been a minimum of 9,076,205 guns purchased by U.S. citizens. This is over one million a month.

Details here.

Highlights:

Conservative estimates of legally owned guns in the USA put the number at 355,029,250 million guns in the USA. That is 1.17 guns for everyone in the USA.

Okay. Now that everyone has at least one lets start working on at least one pistol, rifle, and shotgun for everyone.

The most stunning in all of this is that we have not seen an increase in crime, murder rates have fallen across most of the USA and Americans have shown that they can be trusted with firearms ownership.  This is directly in contrast to what the national media and gun control supporters would have us believe.

It's not stunning. It's what most people who have researched the issue expect. More Guns, Less Crime.

This is mostly to the other bloggers that went to Summer Camp with me last year but I thought it might be of more general interest as well.

When I went to the range last night I was wearing my Blackwater USA (recently rebranded to "U.S. Training Center") cap and t-shirt. I've worn the hat there before but never the shirt. The staff was extraordinarily friendly to me. They had a big smile on their face and didn't ask to see my ID card and had my stack of free targets in their hand and extended to me before I even reached the counter.

Has anyone else noticed people treating you differently when you are wearing Blackwater branded clothes?

It's the ATF this time:

Domain Name		usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP		US Dept of Justice
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  Maryland City  :  Potomac Lat/Long  :  39.023, -77.1993 (Map) Distance  :  2,059 miles
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DOJ3jx7bf; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1024 x 768 Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 4 2009 6:32:08 am
Last Page View		Sep 4 2009 6:32:08 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.topix.net...rch/article/p3?q=atf
Search Engine		topix.net
Search Words		atf
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffm...VictimlessCrime.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffm...VictimlessCrime.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 4 2009 9:32:08 am
Visit Number		586,845

The boss is going on vacation for a couple weeks to celebrate his 25th Wedding Annivesary (which isn't until December but contrary to suggestions they are not celebrating early in case they don't actually make it that far). Instead of this little mouse being able to play while the cat is away he asked that I be the cat while he is gone. And as he brought me up to speed on the things that needed my attention while he was gone he told me the demo I'm working on that he absolutely must have by the 18th (two weeks from now) is actually due next Tuesday (one working day)*.

I worked until almost 20:00 last night then went to the range and put a couple hundred rounds down range. Blogging will probably be light until after Tuesday as I will be spending most of my time working or at one of three different ranges.

*To be fair, it was as much a surprise to him as it was me.

Bringing loaded firearms to any Presidential event endangers all in attendance. Even though our weak national and state gun laws may allow this dangerous behavior, we should use a little common sense.

Paul Helmke
August 17, 2009
Gun Responsibility:
Leave Loaded Firearms At Home
When Attending Presidential Events
[Where is the evidence of the claim of increased danger? I think the answer is in the words he uses. The law doesn't "allow" guns to be carried almost everywhere anytime. It guarantees we have the right to do so.

Let's translate that into something more recognizable for what it is:

Ni**ers at any Presidential event endangers all in attendance. Even though our weak national and state race laws may allow this dangerous behavior, we should use a little common sense.

Bigotry is an ugly thing.-Joe]

For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.

...

I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these thugs attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of extremists carrying guns is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate. Is there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that people should carry guns to a public debate or speech?

Arthur Frommer
August 19, 2009
Do Guns at Political Events Disturb You? Then Consider Skipping Arizona for Now
[This is about people exercising a specific enumerated right in a time, place, and manner in which no one was hurt, no laws were broken, and only the bigots were alarmed.

Let's translate that into something more recognizable for what it is:

For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where ni**ers gather in groups on the sidewalks as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.

...

I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these monkeys attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of ni**ers is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate. Is there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that ni**ers should be at a public debate or speech?

Bigotry is an ugly thing.-Joe]

Last night in the chat room for the Gun Nuts Top of the Chain said that he would like to know what to expect at the Gun Rights Policy Conference that he is attending this year. I was a speaker there in 1999 and 2000 and it is quite reasonable to ask that sort of question. The hosts of the show didn't bring it up on the show and I didn't have the CPU bandwidth to respond in chat while keeping up with the voice processing at the same time. I intended to address it in my post late last night but I forgot about it. So, better late than never...

The two GRPC events that I went to were about 500 and 700 gun rights activists listening to and networking with other gun rights activists. There were speakers nearly all day long who talked about a variety of subjects (see the links above to the 1999 and 2000 events). Some of the speakers were absolutely awesome. Others were merely good. There were lots and lots of "war stories". A lot of it could be thought of as After Action Reviews for all the major and many of the minor skirmishes in our battles with the media, legislatures, and the anti-gun organizations.

There were lots of gun books available and many of them were free. Many were scholarly journals on the sociological and legal aspects of gun control. There was some really awesome stuff.

I got to meet and talk with people like Alan Korwin, Neal Knox, a U.S. Congressman (he and I ate lunch alone together), a candidate for U.S. Congress (and became good friends with her), and many lesser known but still incredibly talented people.

Top of the Chain also asked, in my comment section about coming out as a blogger. That's a little more difficult question because in 1999 and 2000 was before I even knew what a blog was. I didn't start blogging until February of 2004. I do know the people that put the event on. When I talked to Alan Gottlieb at the NRA Convention last year he said he read my blog and I know they keep a very close watch on what is being said in the major media outlets as well as many of the Internet forums and email lists. I'm certain coming out as a blogger will not be a bad thing in any way. The only thing that could be bad about it would be if the content was offensive in some manner. If the content was racist, homophobic, or advocated illegal violence it would be heavily frowned upon.

We've all had it happen.  You mention the "S" word (socialism) in a political discussion and the one(s) on the Left act all indignant, denying that the socialism they're advocating has anything to do with socialism; "Why, I'm shocked, I tell you!  Shocked!"

To accuse anyone of advocating communism is to guarantee that you'll be flagged as a nutbag (as if there's no such thing as communism anymore, even if there ever was).  Do not let that dissuade you.

This recording was circulating quite a bit last week, but it needs more attention.  It's a Democrat Congresswoman from LA.  Suck on this, Leftists and Progressives.  If you're not socialists or communists, then you'll no doubt get this loyal Obama supporter kicked out of your party.  Furthermore, you'd no doubt be in support of a law banning all forms of socialism.  Right?  Since you're not communist or socialist at all, in any way?  Right?

Meanwhile; the Republican Party remains AWOL, or in a drunken stupor, or they're out chasing pink elephants with a bad case of the DTs.  They're actually polling us right now about what we think of ObamaCare (looks at floor, shakes head and sighs).  I was dumb enough to actually take the poll, before I realized the full vastness of the stupidity of it.  A momentary lapse into Condition White, I guess.

Someone in the U.S. Senate is looking for information on a particular Federal Judge:

Domain Name		senate.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		156.33.142.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP		U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  District of Columbia City  :  Washington Lat/Long  :  38.9097, -77.0231 (Map) Distance  :  2,071 miles
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinNT
Browser		Firefox Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript		version 1.5
Monitor		Resolution  :  1680 x 1050 Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 2 2009 12:51:43 pm
Last Page View		Sep 2 2009 12:51:43 pm
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...nnlain&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		judge oscannlain
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/04/21/QuoteOfTheDayJudgeOScannlain.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/04/21/QuoteOfTheDayJudgeOScannlain.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 2 2009 3:51:43 pm
Visit Number		585,616

That could mean a number of different things. I really have to wonder on the specific meaning of it on this instance. And did my blog post about Judge O’Scannlain make things better or worse for him?

And it's a sobering reminder that we sometimes may have a greater influence than we realize.

Via email from daughter Xenia I found out the University of Idaho where our entire family (and Senator Larry [Wide Stance] Craig and Sarah Palin) went to school won the dubious honor of Speech code of the month:

In the University of Idaho's residence halls, "Actions and/or communication that are discriminatory, harassing or insensitive are not permitted." (Emphasis added.) This policy prohibits a staggering amount of constitutionally protected speech. In fact, this policy prohibits precisely the speech that the First Amendment exists to protect, since people typically do not seek to censor sensitive, respectful expression. Moving beyond the legal issues, speech codes like this one infantilize college students by assuming they cannot cope with any sort of offense. Do we really want to teach our students that they are entitled to seek punishment for others' insensitivity? Perhaps in a small city like Moscow, Idaho, students don't have to deal with much insensitivity on a daily basis, but should they choose to expand their horizons (say, to Philadelphia, for example), they would encounter plenty. And I think it's safe to say a Philly cop would have a good, long laugh if you asked him or her to arrest a fellow Philadelphian for hurting your feelings.

They also ban carry of firearms on campus which is a big concern of mine because my daughters (and niece) frequently walk to and from class from home. This means they can't have the best means of personal protection with them should they need it even though they may legally do so off campus.

Mikeb, this is how I read your words; "Aren't Jews often associated with societal corruption? Wouldn't that be the thing a judge and jury have to consider? Isn't that why Jews are prohibited from certain areas in the first place?"

There is no convincing people who have this sort of attitude, or at least it is extremely rare. Our best hope is to demonstrate to them that expressing their bigoted views is going to make them more and more unpopular. They acquired their bigotry through group think, repetition, and associations (the desire to 'fit in') and they'll usually have to be pried away from their bigotry by the same mechanisms. Some will always hold on to their bigotry, but tend more and more to keep it to themselves. If that's the best we can accomplish in some cases, so be it. I'd rather they respect human rights in all cases, but if that's impossible, the next best thing is that they be afraid to act on their hatred.

Lyle @UltiMAK
September 1, 2009
Comment to 57 months for a victimless crime.
[I was going to say something similar in the comment thread but Lyle beat me to it and with better depth than I would have given to the troll.--Joe]

Although I was happy not to have talked myself into a corner on the show there were some things I would have liked to have said differently, explained, or expanded on.

First off, sorry about the bit about asking if you wanted ketchup or relish on your hot dog. I removed my head set and held it away but James' voice apparently came through even though he was a good ten feet from the microphone.

Sometimes being extremely literal is to my detriment (it also has advantages but that is a different story). When Caleb asked which blog posts I was most proud of I did not include The Jews In The Attic Test because that isn't a blog post. That is a web page on a different website written long before I had a blog. Caleb didn't let me get away with not mentioning it however and posted a link to it in the chat room. See also Breda's post about the other bloggers "greatest hits".

In the last few seconds of the show Caleb asked what we bloggers would like other bloggers to do differently. I could have spent a minute or two on the topic instead of 15 seconds (or whatever it was). In fact at Gun Blogger Rendezvous II (October 2007) I had asked for an hour for a discussion of that type. Mike said I could bring it up during a particular time slot and when the time came he pressed me pretty hard and I declined to elaborate. I just didn't have the idea whittled down to it's essence in a way that would come across as coherent. The basis of my thought is this:

• We all have something that we do well in the blogosphere--most likely because we are passionate about it
• Each of us have a niche that is at least somewhat different from everyone else
• If we can recognize and articulate what it is that we do well and want to accomplish we that will probably enable us to do what we do better

Microsoft used to have the mission statement "A computer on every desk and in every home". It is now "At Microsoft, our mission and values are to help people and business throughout the world realize their full potential". I've also heard it expressed as "Your potential, our passion."

I think every blogger should have a mission statement. It doesn't have to be posted on the banner or part of the name of the blog. It doesn't even have to be written down. I just has to be something that the blogger refers to when he or she is thinking about when they are working on that "really great post" or when they are searching for something to blog about. "What is my mission here?" should have an answer that can be articulated even if it is done silently and rarely.

I made some suggestions on the show and here they are (perhaps modified a bit) along with some others. Can you guess whose blog they might refer to?

• Be the best aggregator with minimal fluff and maximum coverage
• Educate people on the philosophical foundations and practical reasons for liberty
• Make the Brady Campaign the social equivalent of the KKK
• Mock the arrogant, the pretentious, and the criminal
• Have no shame but shame those that need it
• Proselytize the shooting sports and self-defense
• Preserve our future through knowing our history
• Politics are complex so explain and enable people to be effective
• America's most aggressive defender of firearms ownership (from an existing website--guess who)

There might be multiple mission statements for a given blog but with more you increase the risk of not being able to succeed in any one of them.

Think about it. And just because I might have suggested something you think was for your blog doesn't mean you can't tell me I'm way off base that your blog is about something entirely different. My perception, my error.

Via email to the WA-CCW and WA-guns lists from Joe Waldron I discovered the Nebraska now recognizes concealed carry permits from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota (class one permit), Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. Does D.C. even have carry permits?

They go on to say that if the holder is 21 or older California, Iowa, Maine, Montana, North Dakota (class 2 permit), and Texas permits are acceptable.

The Apex of the Triangle of Death (NRA-ILA) needs to update their website for Nebraska and D.C.

I don't think I have ever been in Nebraska and I don't have any plans to visit in the foreseeable future but if I did I could carry when I went there. I'll sleep a little better tonight. Not so much because I can now carry in Nebraska but because thousand of other people can and will. That makes them a little bit safer and the anti-gun bigots a little bit more demoralized.

John Fogh has started blogging. John is an instructor at Insights.

I also have quoted him here and here.

I was invited to be on Blog Talk Radio tonight. I'll be talking (or maybe mostly just listening) with a bunch of Gun Nuts. The official description of tonights show is (links added):

Joining us tonight will be a veritable cornucopia of blogging awesome, as LabRat, Stingray, Kevin Baker, Joe Huffman, and Robb Allen will be joining us to discuss blogging and current events. Don't miss it!

Caleb also has a post up about the show.

Update: Breda says, like herding cats. She also says, "notorious for their independent, quick-witted, and sometimes even contrary characters". The others on the panel are definitely very quick-witted I won't think of witty things to say until an hour after the show is over. However, Barb will vouch for me being "notorious" and "contrary".

Remember, sheep have two speeds – Grazing and stampede.

Robb Allen
September 1, 2009
Having one's cake and eating it too
[Grass eaters. We are surrounded by them so we have to be careful not to excessively frighten them and cause us to get run over in the stampede. That doesn't mean we can't use a little bit of fear to herd them in the proper direction though. In our society the tricky part is coordinating the herding and even finding a suitable direction to herd them.--Joe]