The View From North Central Idaho

This is something I wrote for the gun email list at work. Most of the people on the list live in California so I slanted it a little bit in that direction but I think it has application for a much broader audience.

I realize the situation is much different in California than in the states I spend most of my time (Washington and Idaho) but we are winning. We have been winning a bunch of court battles. We have been winning some political victories (carry in National Parks and in checked bags on Amtrak, carry in 49 states, fines for cities and elected officials in Florida who violate state preemption, etc. etc.). The anti-gun organizations are in financial trouble. And probably most importantly we are winning public opinion (see the most recent Gallup poll on guns).

As much progress as we have made elsewhere California and a few other states are still are a cancer that can spread if not treated. Don’t think that those of us in the free(er) states are unaware of the importance of these trouble spots or that we are neglecting the situation. And we are making progress in California. As you folks are probably even better aware than I SAF and CalGuns are making progress in the courts. I’ve spent a lot of time with Alan Gottlieb and Alan Gura and I am convinced they are more than competent and have plans that have a reasonable chance of success.

The blogosphere is also doing what it can to change things in California. Through the cooperation of Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned I was interviewed by a reporter for the Los Angeles Times yesterday. I was a bit apprehensive as the LA Times has been far from friendly to gun owners in the past. This report was fair and did not take advantage of some things I said which could have sounded poorly out of context. Although she didn’t mention it in the article her mother has even been to Front Sight!

I suspect California gun owners can make a difference by “coming out of the closet” now. I understand the risks but the rewards can be significant if done correctly.

One thing I would like to suggest is that gun owners/clubs reach out to traditional media. Boomershoot has had some remarkably good coverage (the KING5 Evening Magazine video on Boomershoot was even nominated for an Emmy). Boomershoot has some draw and some PR talent (not me) that most gun organizations can’t take advantage of but they can help gain public acceptance of gun owners without too much effort.

Find local news outlets that have a local events sections and get your IPDA/USPSA/Cowboy-Action/Steel-Challenge/Bowling-Pin/Bulleye/High-Power/whatever match listed. After the match write up a story (my PR person says, somewhat cynically, “Reporters are lazy. If you want their support do their work for them.”) about the match results and send it to the local news organizations. If you have something a little different you might even get them to send a reporter. Cowboy Action frequently qualifies as “different” enough. Action Pistol (IPDA/USPSA) matches provide an opportunity for this as well. I created stages for a USPSA match that addressed a visit by Fred Phelps to the area and made it into the local newspaper and the AP. That led to an interview for an article in the Seattle Times. A YouTube video of a Gabby Giffords themed concealed carry side match to a USPSA match generated nearly 8000 views and the rage of anti-gun groups and even got the attention of a Brady Campaign Board member who said, “These folks could have just sat back and shut up.”

If a news article has errors about guns (.357 caliber Glocks and 40mm handguns are my favorites) contact the reporter. Ask if they would like to attend a “media day”. Invite a number of media organizations and if you get a decent response set up a ½ day class (Keep it short! They won’t want to invest a whole day) to teach them the basics of gun types, gun vocabulary, gun myths, and gun safety. Print and bind some nice copies of the NSSF writers guide to give them (NSSF may have some for sale or distribution, you might check with them before printing your own). Include some range time with a .22 with options for larger calibers for those that are interested.

Carefully select your media guides. Good looking professionals of both sexes and various ethnic backgrounds will help dispel the stereotypes they may have of gun owners. Train your people! Prepare them for loaded questions. When media is expected at Boomershoot we have designated media contacts and since our people are spread all over the country do training via email discussions. We have a media guide FAQ (with our own inside humor) to help prepare our people. And except for those in the media who we know are gun friendly (I.E. Michael Bane of Shooting Gallery) we have a media guide with them at all times. We successfully handled a Newsweek reporter who, as near as we could determine, exclusively reported on terrorism, both international and domestic.

If you decide to head down this path let me know if I can help. My Boomershoot PR person currently has some health issues that sometimes prevent timely responses but if anyone thinks they could benefit from some help I will be glad to share what I have learned and pass on the tougher problems to an expert.

[W]e have to get some shit straight.

If you are an atheist then the Koran is fiction, if you are Christian it's either fiction or worse, the work of Satan, if Jewish well I don't know, you probably think something like the Christian, and if Muslim, ....oh yeah I don't have Muslim friends.... Well whatever you believe, unless you are Muslim the Koran is NOT holy or sacred, it is a FALSE book, about a FALSE religion, by a FALSE prophet of a FALSE god. Everybody have that straight?

We publicly fund shit like "Piss Christ" and the same Americans who protest to protect it are mad about a fucking Koran?

Today should officially be "go buy a Koran, put it on the barbecue, and cook some fucking pork chops and bacon with it" day.

It's called a fucking war, if you don't like it feel free to castrate yourself and all the males in your genetic line, convert to Islam, and let the savages breed with your women.

Oh, one more thing, unless you are a follower of Islam quit calling that boy-buggering pedophile Mohammad a damn prophet! Whether you are atheist, Christian or Jewish he CAN'T be a prophet. He is either a wack-job like L.Ron who made some shit up or he is the minion of the Devil.

Greg Hamilton
February 27, 2012
Facebook Post (with some minor typos fixed).
[Greg is very good at succinctly expressing a complex topic in such a way that you realize the topic perhaps isn't as complex as you thought it was. See also all my other quotes by and references to him.

The one thing not directly addressed in his rant above is about respecting other religions. If we are to respect the First Amendment don't we have to respect all religions? To that I would say the First Amendment is about mutual respect. Read Osama bin Laden's letter to America and tell me how we can have peace with people like that and still have a First Amendment, a Bill of Rights, or even a constitution other than something that is subordinate to the Koran. He literally says:

What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

…

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

Our options are: 1) Dispose of our Constitution and accept Islam as our one and only state approved religion; 2) Be at war with them—forever; 3) Convince them by any means possible that portions of their religion have to be permanently abandoned.

Respecting their religion is only an option if it is your intent to completely submit to their religion. If that is your intent then as Hamilton says, "…feel free to castrate yourself and all the males in your genetic line, convert to Islam, and let the savages breed with your women."—Joe]

Those who consider themselves iconic conservatives, or Republican leaders, often praise  President Lincoln.  Just reading the Emancipation Proclamation, I see it as a cheap political ploy of Clintonian style (or W. J. Clinton was of the Lincolnian tradition).  It didn't free a single slave.  Furthermore, the North had slaves all through The War Between the States, and General Grant kept slaves for years after.  Depending on who you listen to, Lincoln was either a brutal tyrant or a brilliant champion of liberty.  I definitely do not see the latter.  This whole issue is clouded in B.S. so thick I can't see through it.  Where do I turn for the truth?

If you are in or near New York City on March 9^th this would be something interesting to attend:

The Fordham Urban Law Journal will host its Volume XXXIX Symposium, titled "Gun Control and the Second Amendment: Developments and Controversies in the Wake of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago," on Friday, March 9 at Fordham Law School in New York City.
 
The event will be divided into the following panels:
· The Effect of the Supreme Court's Gun Control Restrictions on Crime Rates
· The Scope of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Post-Heller and McDonald
· Urban Exceptionalism and Modern Conceptions of the Militia

It includes some well-known names of people who are supportive of gun rights such as Don Kates, David Kopel, and Gary Kleck as well as some heavy hitters of the opposing team.

A bit off topic, but what is "Urban Exceptionalism"? I wasn't able to find a quick answer to that.

I had no idea of the connection:

Yoga teachers and how-to books seldom mention that the discipline began as a sex cult — an omission that leaves many practitioners open to libidinal surprise.

…

But over the decades, many have discovered from personal experience that the practice can fan the sexual flames. Pelvic regions can feel more sensitive and orgasms more intense.

Science has begun to clarify the inner mechanisms. In Russia and India, scientists have measured sharp rises in testosterone — a main hormone of sexual arousal in both men and women. Czech scientists working with electroencephalographs have shown how poses can result in bursts of brainwaves indistinguishable from those of lovers. More recently, scientists at the University of British Columbia have documented how fast breathing — done in many yoga classes — can increase blood flow through the genitals. The effect was found to be strong enough to promote sexual arousal not only in healthy individuals but among those with diminished libidos.

In India, recent clinical studies have shown that men and women who take up yoga report wide improvements in their sex lives, including enhanced feelings of pleasure and satisfaction as well as emotional closeness with partners.

At Rutgers University, scientists are investigating how yoga and related practices can foster autoerotic bliss. It turns out that some individuals can think themselves into states of sexual ecstasy — a phenomenon known clinically as spontaneous orgasm and popularly as “thinking off.”

Interesting. Very, very interesting.

John Harrigan at NewHampshire.com has his own version of Just One Question:

Whenever anyone tries to draw me into the gun-control controversy, I ask this: Given the nation's estimated 200 million guns, how are we going to keep them out of the hands of scofflaw criminals who could then prey on a law-abiding, disarmed citizenry? This is only one question in a complex matter, but until someone with a grip on reality provides an answer, that's it for me.

I find it interesting he has a similar rational to mine for creating and using the question.

Son-in-law John reports:

Hey Joe,

Thought you'd find it interesting. I'm taking a criminal justice course online at the moment and this weeks assignment is to write a paper on a terrorist or extremist event. The 7 events they use are:

• Ramzi Yousef 1993 World Trade Center Bombing
• Beirut, Lebanon vehicle bombing of the Marine barracks
• Ruby Ridge
• Oklahoma City Murray Federal building bombing
• Theodore Kaczynski letter bombs
• Waco Siege
• Lockerbie PAN AM Flight 103 bombing

I briefly considered writing about how waco and ruby ridge were more examples of the ATF and FBI being the terrorist entities, but I don't think that would fly very well, grade wise.

More details followed:

School Name: Grantham University

Course title: CJ101, Intro to Criminal Justice Instructor; Carolyn Dennis
Description:
Introduction to Criminal Justice presents a broad view of the criminal justice system. The course focuses on decision points and administrative practices in police and other criminal justice agencies, as well as basic criminal procedures. A realistic description of the American criminal justice system is presented and how it works – police, courts, and corrections. Topics include: what is criminal justice, the crime picture and the search for its causes, criminal law, policing history and structure, police management and legal aspects, adjudication including the courts and sentencing, corrections involving probation, parole, community corrections, prisons and jails, prison life, juvenile justice, drugs and crime, multinational criminal justice, and the future of criminal justice.

Week 7 assignment:
Case Study: Terrorists and Extremists

As described in the Module 7 Power Point presentation, criminologist Gwynn Nettler outlined all terrorism shares six characteristics:

• No Rules-No moral limitations on the type or degree of violence that terrorists can use.
• No Innocents-No respecter of persons; from soldiers to children; all are game.
• Economy-Kill one, frighten 10,000
• Publicity-Terrorists seek publicity, and publicity encourages terrorism.
• Meaning-Terrorist acts give meaning and significance to the lives of terrorists.
• No Clarity-Beyond the immediate aim of destructive acts, the long-term goals of terrorists are likely to be poorly conceived or impossible to implement. Terrorism that succeeds escalates.

The last seven slides of the Module 7 Power Point presentation depicted the following case studies of actual terrorist or extremist type events.  Select one of these case studies, do further research on it and complete a 2-page APA formatted essay discussing the application of these six characteristics in the event you select. In addition, the student will state if the chosen event was a Domestic or International event and why it is so.

By that definition it does seem the actions of the FBI at Ruby Ridge and Waco are properly classified as terrorist events. Good to know.

There are not many news outlets more hostile to gun ownership than MSNBC.

Or at least that is the way it used to be. Here we have an article in MSNBC telling us how much fun you can have with machine guns in Las Vegas:

You may want to set your sights on Las Vegas’ newest attraction, Machine Guns Vegas (MGV), which opened its doors Monday. Part gun range, part ultra-lounge, MGV invites visitors to grab the automatic weapon of their choice — Uzis, AK-47s and more — and get in touch with their inner gangster or SEAL Team Six commando.

“You’d be amazed at the number of people who come to Vegas and want to shoot a machine gun,” said co-owner Genghis Cohen. “It’s an experience you can’t have in a lot of places in the world.”

Gun ranges, of course, are nothing new but MGV puts a decidedly Sin City spin on the concept, a reflection, in part, of Cohen’s background in the city’s nightlife industry. He originally came to Las Vegas from his native New Zealand to open Tabu, the über-hip lounge in the MGM Grand.

MGV takes a similarly stylish approach, albeit an alcohol-free one, complete with leather furniture, hardwood floors and a bevy of “Gun Girls” led by model and U.S. Air Force veteran Jeannie Duffy.

I'm a little concerned the "Gun Girls" have the potential to reduce acceptance by women. But while she is quite attractive at least the picture of Duffy doesn't show an excessive amount of skin or promise jiggle with the machine gun recoil:

I suppose that if we're going to discuss who is compensating for what; the argument could be made that those who want more government in their lives, those who feel the need for the forceful interventions by government, are compensating for a lack of confidence in their ability to interact productively with other people in a free society. They don't see themselves as capable of prospering when the rules are level and people's rights are equally protected, so they have to advocate a system that gives them some special advantage over their betters. They're compensating for weakness, meekness, timidity, self loathing, lack of imagination and other inabilities, so they're looking for outlets for their jealousy and the hatred that comes from it.

Lyle@UltiMAK
February 27, 2012
Comment to Quote of the day—OC.
[This makes a lot more sense than some sort of penis envy the anti-gun people claim to exist in regards to firearms ownership.—Joe]

In conformance with the naming of fire, flood, and collision insurance the policy that pays out in the event of your death should be called "Death Insurance".

"Life Insurance" is what you should call your carry handgun.

Update: I woke up at 3:30 the next morning realizing it probably should "Life Assurance". Then I found the comment from Publius who suggested "life ensurance". But I can't find a definition for "ensurance". [shrug]

We moved into a new office in downtown Seattle today. I have a nice view of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains from my desk. Very nice!

I also discovered Ry started work here today!

I’m sorry but anyone who has to carry a gun in public has a small weiner. They just do. It’s not open for discussion.

OC
March 4, 2010
Comment to Open Thread: Penis Substitutes At the Ready!
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday!

Apparently OC also isn’t a fan of the First Amendment, the scientific method, or spelling checkers.—Joe]

Local elected officials are not above the law, and I think it's arrogant and disrespectful of the citizens of this state when you have a local elected official who thinks they can pass any law they want willy-nilly.

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe
February 25, 2012
Gun bill could put Allentown on defensive--NRA wants owners of firearms to take cities with reporting laws to court.
[It's no different than if a city were to pass a law prohibiting interracial or gay marriages. The state possess the sole power to regulate marriages and in this case as well as many others the state has the sole power to regulate firearms. City politicians that think they have the power regulate firearms have a lot in common with those that discriminate against other minorities and should be dealt with in the same manner and public scorn.—Joe]

Guns-n-Eyeballs by TankerGrunt.

This is another win win for the NRA and it's buddies in the gun lobby.

The Banksters buddies crush any opposition to them, so they can continue to fund the gun manufacturers, which in turn soaks our communities with guns, blood, and death.

Bryan Miller
Using the alias "BantheNRA".
November 15, 2011
Comment to N.Y. judge rules against Occupy Wall Street protesters, upholds decision to dismantle Zuccotti Park encampment
[For many years Miller was the director of CeaseFire New Jersey until it went belly up.

His alias demonstrates his contempt for the First Amendment as well as the Second.

But most importantly the comment above demonstrates Miller apparently hasn't been taking his anti-psychotic medications. He, and most anti-gun extremists, live in an alternate reality all their own.—Joe]

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case.
 
The problem isn’t just with the long-gun registry. The data provided above cover all guns, including handguns. There is no evidence that, since the handgun registry was started in 1934, it has been important in solving a single homicide.

John R. Lott Jr. & Gary Mauser
February 20, 2012
Death of a Long-Gun Registry
[H/T David Hardy.

Don't ever forget the story of the Belgium Corporal. The only thing a gun registry is good for is confiscation.

When someone suggests gun registration is a good thing you know they are ignorant, stupid, and/or evil. You should determine which and deal with them appropriately.—Joe]

We generally don’t consider a crease to be damaged or mutilated such that it would prevent travel. Even if the RFID chip in the passport fails to operate, as long as the data and photo are legible, there should be no problem.

Colorado Passport Agency
February 23, 2012
Denver family stranded after passport denied because of crease
[H/T Say Uncle.

So… what this appears to mean is that you may intentionally (perhaps with plausible deniability) destroy the RFID chip and not worry about it invalidating your passport. This eliminates all the concerns about remote RFID scanning. It also means our government knows and acknowledges the RFID chips do not enhance security. Any security arguments made about their use in passports is invalid by their own admission.

One must now ask, "What is the real reason why they want RFID chips in the passports?"—Joe]

There is one thing we are very good at.

Since is it illegal for the government to keep records of someone who exercises their First Amendment rights it should also be illegal for a government to keep records of someone who exercises their Second Amendment rights.

Can you imagine the outcry if the government demanded you fill out the equivalent of a 4473 and undergo a NICS check before purchasing a printer for your computer, start a blog, or write a letter to the editor?

The Second Amendment deserves as much or more respect than the First Amendment and we need to get that point across.

The existence of a position with the title "Political Officer" fills me with rage. In the military or a business the mere existence of such a position is evidence the government should be overthrown.

James Huffman-Scott
February 20, 2012
This was said while watching Voices of Authority in season three of Babylon 5.
[Yeah. It is just a TV show but I can understand that if it were to happen in real life. And I can see we aren't that far away from it actually happening here. Having your friends and neighbors sending an email to the Whitehouse (search for "flag" on this page) about something you said in opposition to a government program or policy in violation of Federal law is a relatively small step from having a political officer looking over your shoulder all of the time.

It's probably because of my advancing age and desensitization from the constant assaults to our freedom over the years that I don't get nearly as angry about things like that anymore.

Instead of getting angry I spend my time building tools to enable the revolution should the offenses reach an intolerable level with no other options available.—Joe]

Why apply prior restraint to a Constitutionally-protected right, then? Barring stupidity, deliberate ignorance or outright insanity, … unreasoning prejudice is the only motive.

Roberta X
February 21, 2012
Running The Numbers
[For a simple one-word answer "prejudice" is close enough and probably should be used in those contexts where sound bytes are important. But the real answer is probably much more complex. There is more than a little ignorance, a fair amount of stupidity and a lot of near insanity as well. Read about Peterson Syndrome for a more complete story on that mix.

But what Roberta left out was hatred, maliciousness, and evil. There are those that would disarm us because they know that if we have arms we will forcefully resist their final ultimate solution to what they believe to be the problems of the world.—Joe]

Potassium Chlorate is one of the ingredients in Boomerite. I've often fantasized about making it myself because it's the most expensive component, it requires an ATF explosives license to purchase in the quantities I need, and my sole supplier is in New Jersey.

Here is how to make it in your garage/kitchen/basement:

I think I will continue to purchase it. We use about 350 pounds per year and scaling up the process above to meet our needs just doesn't look worthwhile.

Now that my ATF license to manufacture explosives has been successfully renewed I'm going to take a chance and poke a little fun at them.

First off let me say that the people I dealt with were all very professional and went out of their way to help resolve the problem with far less hassle than they could have had they just wanted to be bureaucratic jerks. I find no fault whatsoever with the ATF people I dealt with. The problem is with the regulations. Regulations sometimes aren't really applicable to every situation. But that doesn't mean that the bureaucrats enforcing the regulations or the peons subject to those regulations can decide to ignore them. We are mostly just stuck with them.

With those caveats imagine my surprise when after several years of using the Taj Mahal for storage of explosives as a "Type 1" explosives magazine I was told it was actually an "indoor magazine" and hence a "Type 2" magazine. See the applicable regulations here.

The Taj Mahal looks like this:

The door you see inside the metal shed is the theft and bullet resistant portion of the magazine and is 3'x6'x6'. The metal shed is 10'x14'xHeadScalpingHeight. I considered the shed part of the magazine. The shed provides protection from the rain and snow and the heavy steel and locks provides the theft and bullet resistance. For several years the ATF inspectors apparently saw it the same way.

The new inspector and her supervisor didn't see it that way:

It is not considered a permanent structure because it is a shed that can be moved. Am I correct in the fact that the building is not attached to the ground (with cement, etc)?

It is attached to the concrete with bolts. But that wasn't good enough:

I have reviewed the report and photographs of the magazine and have determined it to be an indoor Type II magazine.   Even though the magazine is bolted into the concrete, does not make it permanent and the shed is not incidental.    For purposes of establishing an indoor magazine, ATF has determined that the building or structure in which the magazine is placed:

1.     Is of suitable, stable construction to provide protection from wind and other inclement weather conditions.
2.    The structure’s walls and roof are constructed of metal, wood, brick, cement or concrete and makes the structure unsusceptible to mobility or intrusion.
3.    The base or floor of the structure consists of earth or other flat, level material which can sustain the weight of the magazine.
4.    The doors are secured to provide additional security and theft-resistance to the magazine.

In my review, I have determined that the shed meets the requirements, as stated above, for a building or structure.   Even though the magazine may weigh 3000 lbs and is bolted to the concrete it still does not meet the definition of a Type 01 magazine.  As it is currently constructed, this magazine is classified as a Type 2 indoor magazine.  Thus it can only hold a maximum of 50 lbs of explosives materials. 

Okay, so what?

The issue is that the maximum amount of explosives you can store in an "Type 2 Indoor Magazine" is 50 pounds. For a "Type 1" magazine it is determined by the distance to the nearest inhabited building or public road or railway. With a distance of 1950 feet to the nearest inhabited building I was previously allowed to store up to 18,000 pounds of high explosives at that site (sorry Barron, I was mistaken, it has to be 2000 feet before we could store 180,000 pounds). The Taj couldn't hold that much because it was too small but it was nice to know I could pack it full without worrying about getting in trouble with the ATF.

A 50 pound limit just doesn't work for our situation. We store about 1600 pounds at the Taj on the Saturday night before Boomershoot.

After getting the bad news from the ATF I started asking questions:

Would it become a Type I magazine, and hence be allowed more than 50 pounds of explosives material, if the shed were removed and the magazine were exposed?

I didn't get a reply so some time later I sent another email:

I would like to know if a solution to Type I/Type II problem is for me to remove the metal shed.

It would also be useful for me to find out the definition you are using for the word “permanent” in this sentence:

Even though the magazine is bolted into the concrete, does not make it permanent and the shed is not incidental.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary (used by the ATF in ATF Ruling 2005-3) permanent means:

1. Lasting or remaining without essential change: "the universal human yearning for something permanent, enduring, without shadow of change" (Willa Cather).
2. Not expected to change in status, condition, or place: a permanent address; permanent secretary to the president.

By that definition the shed and magazine are permanent. I am having difficulty in imaging how it can be considered a Type II magazine because according to 555.208, “A Type II magazine is a box, trailer, semitrailer, or other mobile facility”.  Below is a picture of the base of the magazine and shed while it was under construction:

Four inches of concrete were poured into the forms above and the shed and magazine was bolted to it. I am unable to find any definition of “mobile” for which the concrete slab and attached structures qualifies. If it would make a difference I would be glad to weld the magazine to the slab instead of just bolting it.

If necessary what I can also do is only use it to store materials “In the process of manufacture” as per 555.205 since if it is “In the process of manufacture” the materials don’t need to be kept in a locked magazine.

Please advise.

In response the story changed just a little bit:

Just to make sure that I have classified this magazine correctly, I am forwarding your e-mail to our Explosives Industry Programs Branch for review.  They will make a classification of your magazine. 

I have one question, I agree that the shed would be permanent but it is not part of the magazine.  The shed is what makes it an indoor magazine.  Since the regulations do not have a description of an indoor Type 1 we must classify this as a Type II.   Even though difficult, can the bolts be removed and thus making the magazine mobile?

Less than hour later (I'm impressed the bureaucracy could move this fast) I received the following email:

The Explosives Industry Programs Branch (EIPB) also has classified this as an indoor magazine.  Since there is no definition for a Type I indoor magazine, it must be classified as a Type II.  EIPB stated that you can remove the shed and that would resolve the 50 lb limitation.  The limitation for the magazine would be 18,000 lbs.  The other possible solution is that you can apply for a variance to store in excess of 50 lbs in an indoor magazine.  The magazine must meet the Tables of Distance and construction requirements.  I am not sure it will be approved but you may want to make that request before taking down the shed.

So it's the existence of the shed and not the "mobility" of the shed that makes it a Type 2! That give me an opening for more questions:

Assuming I remove the shed I would then need to cover the magazine with a more weather resistant covering such as the metal from the shed. What would the maximum spacing between the magazine and the metal covering before it would become an indoor magazine again?

You can see where I'm going with this, right? Apparently so could the ATF because they responded with:

I am trying to find a simpler solution to the problem.   I have a few suggestions into our EIPB that may not be an extensive as building a new structure but changing the old one.   I should have an answer in the morning.

Early the next morning I received the following email:

Here is the easiest solution that we could come up with.  Empty the shed of all materials except the magazine, remove the doors or a wall of the shed.  Since the magazine is not totally enclosed in the shed it would no longer be an indoor magazine.   I think that would resolve all of the issues.  Let me know what you think.

So the bottom line is that if I remove the doors from the shed I can store 18,000 pounds of explosives. If I put the doors on I can only store 50 pounds.

It doesn't have to make sense. It's just a government rule.

Starbucks? This is your bold, patriotic idea of a dangerous venue in which to flaunt your precious Second Amendment pacifiers? Because laptop-wielding hipsters are soooo freaking terrifying? Because the baristers are armed with… scalding hot milk foam?

If your gun is a tool, it is something to be treated with the respect you’d show any potentially dangerous tool. Somehow I don’t see a spontaneous uprising of lumberjacks carrying chainsaws and construction workers flourishing jackhammers at the local Starbucks, because this is the real world, not a badly scripted porno movie. Semi-retired CPAs who listen to a lot of Rush Limbaugh, please copy.

Anyone who has to demonstrate his political allegiances by flashing a gun at a Starbucks has presumably decided that it’s too risky to “support the Second Amendment” at a Dunkin Donuts… where the professional security forces hang out. Or even at the local McDonald’s, where some safety-conscious mommy at the ball pit would be liable to give you a very hurtful talking-to.

Anne Laurie
March 3, 2010
Open Thread: Penis Substitutes At the Ready!
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday!

From the title to any hint of substance in the post itself Laurie demonstrates her total clueness of what the Starbucks conflict was about.—Joe]

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Ronald Reagan
[The freedom to ingest whatever mind altering chemical you desired was lost in the last century. They had to have a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol, But for some reason they didn’t bother with giving themselves the power to ban Marijuana, heroin, or “magic mushrooms”. Politicians just assumed they had the power and almost magically they did have the power.

The same thing almost happened with firearms. From GCA68 to AWB ‘94 (slightly more than a generation) we came within a hair breadth of losing the freedom guaranteed by the 2^nd Amendment.. It’s possible we did loose a part of it (machine guns and destructive devices) to not be recovered in out lifetime--if ever.

There is a lesson to be learned here. It’s a slippery slope and minor, almost tolerable, infringements must not be tolerated.—Joe]

Barron and I went out to the Boomershoot site today. Barron has the full report, with video but the bottom line is that Boomerite stored via a new packaging technique appears work well even after being stored for 13 days.

We put the Boomerite directly in the cardboard boxes then wrapped the cardboard boxes with plastic wrap. They way we have done it for years was to put the Boomerite in zip lock bags and put the bags in the cardboard boxes. This new method is faster, cheaper, allows us to put more Boomerite in each box, and it fills the box all the way to three edges. There is still a bit of a gap at the top edge but less so that before.

I read the book this guy wrote. It is awesome: Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships.

Reading the book you find your jaw sort of dropping and thinking, “Wow! That make so much sense and explains so much.”

I was reminded of this after Say Uncle pointed out Rick Santorum says he will fight the dangers of contraception—some people will want to have sex without any intention of had a child result from it. As a commenter pointed out, “I thought Ron Paul is supposed to be the kook…”

I’m a great example of why it is that the NRA simply mops the floor with its opponents when it comes to influencing DC. As Bloomberg rightly notes, they — gun fetishists or simply Second Amendment absolutists — care way, way more. In fact, it’s not uncommon for that to be the only thing an NRA member cares about. A lifetime of political activism funneled into simply one tiny and, I would argue, frivolous niche.

Elias Isquith
February 17, 2012
Mike Bloomberg And The Politics Of Gun Control
[Regardless of his distain for gun owners there is a certain amount of truth in his statement. Many of us are willing to vote for (or against) someone strictly on the basis of their stand on specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Yes, many of us use the Second Amendment as a strong indicator of a politician’s support for freedom in general. But conversely the anti-freedom people could claim the same thing with a sign change, “If a politician supports gun ownership then you know he is not going to support the type of government that is going to send all the people we don’t like off to the reeducation camps.” But for some reason it doesn’t work for them that way.

It is my suspicion the anti-freedom people can only succeed when they are deceptive. They have to hide their true intentions. They have to express their goals in terms of free unicorns for everyone instead of jack-booted thugs crushing human skulls. Raw anti-freedom simply doesn’t generate that many votes. Gun owners understand that guns are a strong indicator, and a requirement, of free society. Hence we do care more about guns and are willing to vote on that single issue.—Joe]

I've been listening to the book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. If you never have had any concerns about Skynet becoming reality this book will shake you up. If you thought Skynet was science fiction but plausible this book will put you on full alert.

Wow!

Author Ray Kurzweil makes a strong case that technology (and as an aside, biological evolution) advances at an exponential rate. I forget the exact numbers but he claims that we can now expect to see the equivalent of all the advances we saw in the entire 20^th century to happen in the something like first 20 years of the 21^st Century. Then those advances again in something like 10 years. He also claims a case can be made that the exponent in the exponential growth equation is itself increasing exponentially!

The reason the technological growth can increase so rapidly is that we have created tools to create technology more easily. And we create tools to create tools. We have computers that can be taught to see and track objects. We have computers sitting under our desks that have the "brain power" for some task that exceed the capacity of several planets of sentient beings. Soon we will have computers that can not only be used technological levers guided by humans but can create their own tools.

The maximum communication speed of biochemical signals of animals is about 100 meters per second. And the distances those signals need to travel during thinking are on the order of centimeters. These factors are hard physical limits on how fast we can think. A computer has similar problems but the physical limits are not nearly as constraining. Communication speed is approximately 300,000,000 meters per second and the distances are on the order of millimeters. This gives a computer an speed advantage of approximately 30,000,000.

In communication and teaching others humans are limited by our language and our ability to learn a new skill. How many words per minute can a person read or hear and understand and apply? If you are skilled in the field you may be able to read and understand what another subject matter expert tells you but it will still take practice before you can perform at the same level as your teacher. With a computer it can "teach" another computer at whatever rate it takes to transfer the software. The cellphone in your pocket "learns" a new skill with perfect repeatability from other computers in the few seconds it takes to download the app through the sky via the nearest cell tower from the 'net.

Today that 'net is the Internet.

Commenter FlyGuy at Robb's points out that many articles of safety equipment such as seat belts, child safety caps, fire extinguishers, etc. are mandated by government. But yet many governments attempt to ban or heavily regulated another article of safety equipment—firearms.

As he says, "Very eeenteresting…"

In real life, you solve problems by breaking them down into smaller problems that are trivial by themselves. But if you respond to crazy circular logic by refuting each step as you go along, you lose track of the fact that you're actually talking to a crazy person, and you lose the argument. Because by the time you've proven to a anti-gunner that he's not Napoleon, he's already telling you, with equally invincible conviction, that he's Jesus. So you ask him if he was in fact born in a manger, and he tells you that Buckingham Palace is in fact a manger, you redneck, and before you're done explaining what a manger is, he's already tired of being Mary Queen of Scots, at which point you're like "Wait, Buckingham Palace was built after she died!", and you know what he says?

"Kiss me, Josephine, I've beaten Wellington again!"

Brandoch Daha
February 16, 2012
Comment to Fear driven society
[Awesome!

It reminds me of one of the responses to Just One Question, "What colour is orange: True or False?"

Many of these people are truly nuts and cannot be reasoned with. They simply don't have the mental capacity. We should be alert for the signs then change our method of engagement or stop entirely when the crazy becomes apparent.—Joe]

Janis Lyn Joplin, also known as Pearl, The Queen of Rock and Roll, The Queen of Psychedelic Soul, or The Queen of Rocking The Blues, made some good music, to be sure.  Mercedes Benz though was pure snark against capitalism-- the straw man hypocrite, Christian American materialist that her generation thought defined "The (American) System".  They still think much the same today.  They're the Obama voters and the Madison protesters.  Their kids are the Occupy movement.

I wrote new words in response to the old tune, as snark against the socialists.  I call it Lifetime Free Ride;

Obama
Won't you give me
A lifetime free ride
My friends all have trust funds
An' it's hur,tin' my pride
Tax the productive
Until they die
Obama
Won't you give me
A lifetime free ride

Obama
Won't you give me
My own Occ,u,py crowd
I'm ig'n'r'nt and stupid
But I like bein' loud
Never worked a day in my lifetime
I'm worth,less an' proud
Obama
Won't you give me
My own Occ,u,py crowd

Obama
Won't you buy me
Uncondi,tio,nal love
I'm countin' on you, Sir
There's no one else above
I'll need you on my side
When push comes to shove
Obama
Won't you buy me
Uncondi,tio,nal love

(everybody)

Obama
Won't you give me
A lifetime free ride
My friends all have trust funds
An' it's hur,tin' my pride
Tax the productive
Until they die
Obama
Won't you give me
A lifetime free ride

(That's it...heh heh heh)

I have a picture of her pointing a finger of blame at the camera (at all of us), mocking us, while she was in the throes of self-destruction.  To me it's iconic of the left.

The gunfight is over, and the cities lost. The question is: Do they realize it yet?

Patrick Kerkstra
February 14, 2012
Cities facing a tough fight on gun control
[If they were to think about it rationally they cannot help but realize it. But most are probably in denial. Those that are not in denial have only moved to the anger stage. They have quite a way to go before reaching acceptance.

Even though Kerkstra has arrived at the correct conclusion he doesn't seem to consider that it is even plausible that guns are useful for protection. To him, "guns represent a plague, not protection".

A suggestion to Kerkstra: answer Just One Question then get back to me.

I'd leave a comment for him but it appears they have implemented "Reasoned Discourse".—Joe]

Via Uncle;

I don't know the whole back story, but I sure liked all the "what ifs".  Yes; Ronald Reagan, The One, to whom all others must be compared, Ronaldus Magnus, presided over a near doubling of the federal budget, and was all in on the drug war.  I hadn't previously heard of the things he said about Santorum.  Oh goody.

So how can we fix it?  It's already been push verses shove for a long time (my neighbor, the political prisoner, gets out of the federal poke in a few months, but his business is totally gone)(I can't tell you how many times I've been told, "You'd better watch what you say...!").  Ours has just been less violent than, say, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Cultural Revolution.  So far.  I for one would like to keep it that way, but only if it can be going the opposite direction (away from statism and toward liberty).  We'd had far too much of this shit by the time I was born, during the Eisenhower administration.

I suppose then, what we need in a presidential campaign is someone who has a plan to "maintain the revolution, but turn it around the other way and without unnecessary killing".

I'll be interested to know where De Judge goes from here.

Time travel is obviously possible. Everyone does it all the time. Just sitting around doing nothing we travel through time at a rate of 1 second per 1000 milliseconds. What's more interesting is how we can travel through time at a different rate and how this prohibits any time paradoxes from occurring such traveling into the future to meet an older version of yourself.

As I have posted before we are always traveling at a constant speed. This is the speed of light and we cannot change that. What we can change is the direction in which we travel. Nearly all of our velocity is on the time axis but as soon as we move in the conventional sense our velocity in time slows down such that the magnitude of our velocity vector remains constant.

What this means is that every time you travel away from someone and come back you are out of synch with them in regards to time. In nearly all cases the difference is in femtoseconds and is totally irrelevant. What is be more interesting and is conceptually possible is to spend a year (in your perception) and travel two (or ten) years in time as perceived by the people you left behind.

If such a machine were built it would more properly be called a "time vehicle" than a "time machine". To travel any interesting distance in time would require enormous amounts of energy and you cannot retrace your path or go backward in time.

Using such a machine it would be impossible to meet yourself in the future. Use of the vehicle would be exactly analogous to taking a shortcut to some geographical location your friends were traveling to. You will have traveled a shorter distance than your friends but arrive at the same location. It is not possible for you to travel both paths simultaneously.

I'm a bit surprised but it is a valid reference.

My Sitemeter gave me the clue::

Domain Name		verizon.net ? (Network)
IP Address		96.239.233.# (Verizon Internet Services)
ISP		Verizon Internet Services
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) Lat/Long : 38, -97 (Map) Distance : 1,180 miles
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinNT
Browser		Internet Explorer 8.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/4.0; GTB7.2; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; MDDC; .NET4.0C)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1600 x 900 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Feb 15 2012 8:52:39 am
Last Page View		Feb 15 2012 8:52:39 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://en.wikipedia....of_historical_events
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffm...awrenceJohnston.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffm...awrenceJohnston.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-6:00
Visitor's Time		Feb 15 2012 10:52:39 am
Visit Number		1,346,087

On February 3^rd Linoge sent me an email telling me that CSGV was using daughter Kim's picture from the Too Many Victims video on their blog in a manner that erroneously shows gun owners in a poor light. He suggested I might want to ask them to remove it.

On February 6^th I did just that:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 9:46 AM
To: Ladd Everitt
Cc: Kimberly Frederick
Subject: Please remove my daughters picture.

Neither my daughter nor I gave you permission to use her image on the left sidebar of this web page: http://csgv4.blogspot.com/. Please remove it.

Use of the entire video is fine because it includes the proper context.

Thank you.

-joe-
http://blog.joehuffman.org/
http://www.boomershoot.org/
http://www.modernballistics.com/

Sent via Windows Phone Seven.

On February 10^th I received a reply:

From: Ladd Everitt
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:08 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Cc: Kimberly Frederick
Subject: RE: Please remove my daughters picture.

Joe,

Thanks for your email.  We’re running this by our attorneys and will get back with you soon.

Best regards,

Ladd Everitt
Director of Communications
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
1424 L Street NW, Suite 2-1
Washington, DC 20005
W:  [deleted by Joe for privacy reasons]
Cell:  [deleted by Joe for privacy reasons]
Email:  [deleted by Joe for privacy reasons]
Website:  www.csgv.org
Twitter:  http://twitter.com/CSGV
Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/CoalitionToStopGunViolence/

It is now five days later and I still have not heard back from them. Although I am capable and willing to get my own attorney involved are there some "magic words" involving copyrights I need to invoke that might "encourage" them to remove the picture without the involvement of my lawyers?

Thanks.

It’s not his fault he made a bad drawing; he’s only used to seeing them head-on at eye level.

BobG
February 15, 2012
Comment at Say Uncle on why the drawing of a penis on my bumper sticker was nearly unrecognizable.
[Ellen's comment was pretty funny too.—Joe]

As today was Starbucks Appreciation Day (see also posts by Robb Allen, Say Uncle, Sebastian, Tamara, and Thirdpower <-MUST READ) as well as Valentine's Day Barb took the bus into Seattle to have lunch with me. The first thing we did was visit Starbucks where I bought a "Red Velvet Whoopie pie" on the recommendation of Sebastian plus a $50 Starbucks card for Barb and a $40 card for daughter Kim:

Barb took a picture of me in front of the store with my NRA Life Member patch and the receipts:

We went on to have lunch at a nice restaurant and I made a Tweet about our purchases at Starbucks. After lunch I purchased another $40 Starbucks card online for daughter Xenia who lives in Alaska. I Tweeted the total amount spent and it was Retweeted by three others.

That was a total of $131.64 we spent at Starbucks today. By all accounts the attempted boycott of Starbucks was a huge failure and I'm proud to have contributed to that.

Thank you Starbucks for respecting our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms and state laws.

Update: I posted the following message to Starbucks Corporate:

My wife and I visited one of your stores today in support of your refusal to bow to pressure from anti-gun rights activists who attempted a boycott of your store today. I am the blogger who started the "buycott" of your stores two years ago and happily contributed again this year. I purchased a total of $131.64 today (mostly in gift cards) and blogged about it here: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2012/02/15/StarbucksAppreciationDayReport.aspx

Thank you again for not getting involved. Keep doing what you do best--supplying a product that is enjoyed by millions.

Update 2: February 15th.

I was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times this morning about this blog post and the "buycott" of Starbucks. The main thrust was "Why did you do this?" I think it went well.

However there was some discussion of open carry and desensitization of people to the presence of guns in public and I may have messed up on this topic. In general I think there is little to be gained by this from a political perspective. There are cases where it does make sense but those cases somewhat rare. The decision to carry opening in public places needs to be carefully considered and evaluated on a case by case basis. I wrote a rather long blog post about open carry as a political statement and should be referenced before latching on to what may appear as a blanket statement by me against open carry.

Update 3: February 15th, 3:25 PM.

The Los Angeles Times article is online now. My fears were not realized. The reporter accurately reported what was said and did not take liberties.

Update 4: February 16th.

The Global Post also quotes me (via the LA Times).

I've been thinking about this for years, but this post of Kevin's made something gel.

I say we should quit using the term "public school" and start using "coercively funded school".  My wife is not a public school teacher, she is a coercively funded school teacher.  Why should we use their language when we have our own and ours is more to the point?  It is one thing to say you're for public schools, or you're for "Our Children" but it's another to come right out and say you're for coercive funding.

Now I would hope, and predict, that most (though not all) church leaders would eschew coercive funding of their church on the grounds that with government funding comes government control (actually, churches are already government subsidized, but that's a matter for another post).

As I said in comments at Smallest Minority; the purpose of coercively funded schools is to promote coercive funding.  I.e. they'll promote that which gave them life in the first place, and that which sustains them.  What would be the result, after all, if the coercive schools actively and consistently promoted the American principals of liberty?  They'd be working themselves into extinction of course.  "You're right" the students would conclude, "freedom, the free market, would be far superior both morally and functionally, in every respect including education."

No doubt about it; the American founders got it wrong.  Education should have been included with religion and the press in the first amendment, for exactly the same reasons.  As a result of that failure, our coercively funded schools have become indoctrination centers-- socialist missions, if you will, churning out useful idiots if not impassioned believers.  For the life of me, I cannot understand why this was not predicted in the 1780s.

After all these years of entrenchment, what is the fix?  So many states have education funding in their constitutions, I believe it will have to come from the states.  Rex Rammell had a good plan for Idaho, but due to an incompetent campaign no one heard of it.  He acknowledged the state constitutional mandate, but would have chopped much of the top off of the coercive education infrastructure and budget.  It is currently extremely top heavy.  Other measures would have opened the doors to more private schools.

During this time in American history, possession of a firearms was illegal for a person of color. This racism is the base of gun control today.

Kenn Blanchard
February 14, 2012
Maryland vs Moses – The Antebellum Madea
[It's one of the dirty little secrets of gun control. Nearly all gun control laws in this country had their origins in the insistence that "those people" should not be allowed to posses guns. Most of "those people" had black skin, but sometimes they were from Ireland, and sometime they were from Italy or some other place. But the bottom line is people in power decided some minority with a different skin color or ethic background were not worthy to exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

I hear it even today with code words to hide their prejudice. I've had people tell me things like, "I don't see a problem with people like you having guns but the people in the inner cities just can't be allowed to have them."—Joe]

I don't know exactly when or where it happened but someone defaced the bumper sticker on my vehicle:

It's another Markley’s Law Monday!

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdcertlist

This is the URL where many of my dreams go to die.

Steve H.
February 7, 2012
[The URL is to the list of the gun California allows you to own.

What if the URL were to the list of religious or political philosophy books the government allowed you to own and/or read? How long would that survive constitutional challenges?

Via the gun discussion email list at work.—Joe]

Enough is enough! They have no idea what an uprising by the Greek people means. And the Greek people, regardless of ideology, have risen.

Manolis Glezos
February 12, 2012
Glezos is one of Greece's most famous leftists.
This was in response to the looting, rioting, and burning of the city of Athens and other places in Greece due to cuts in government spending.
Greek lawmakers approve austerity bill as Athens burns
[I know what it means. It means:

• If leftists can't loot via political means they will loot via direct violence.
• Leftists do not understand economic reality.
• We can expect to see the violence spread across Europe and to America as economic reality runs its course.

Barb and I had breakfast with son James and his wife Kelsey today. They were contemplating what the economic collapse would look like. This is probably a glimpse of what we have to look forward to.—Joe]

Paramedics have a pretty high threshold for what constitutes an emergency. Generally, if you ain't dying, we don't think it needs an ambulance.
 
But for anything that makes your penis spout an arterial blood spray, I'd make an exception.

Ambulance Driver
February 8, 2012
Overheard On The Bolance
[Via Robb Allen.

For some reason I was able to read the complete post in a rather detached frame of mind. No crossed legs. No cringing.—Joe]

Want to get your teenage daughter to not disobey ever again? Try using a .45:

I'll bet that got her attention. It got the attention of the world with 3.7 million views in three days.

Every time an advocate of gun control promises not to impair the recreational activities of hunters, he demonstrates his contempt for the values underlying the Second Amendment, implying that the issues at stake are trivial.

Jacob Sullum
Reason December 1995: 50-55
Via Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms page 60.
[Or as Weer'd Beard said, "George Washington didn’t cross the Delaware River to get to his duck blind."—Joe]

How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice? First, recognize that it's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation.

Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don't say "What's the matter?" or "Are you all right?"

Third, don't say anything else, either.

Jonathan Rauch
March 2003
Caring for Your Introvert—The habits and needs of a little-understood group
[This entire article really resonated with me. In addition to the "Caring for your introvert" aspects there are some profound political considerations addressed. The first thought I had was "Too bad it would be unconstitional to ban extroverts from seeking public office."

Hi. My name is Joe and I am an introvert.—Joe]

Update: Applicable images from a reader who says the first one "… is especially for Lyle":

Driving home late last night I spotted something in the road that made me do a "Whoa!" so I turned around to clear it off the road.  Pulling off to the side, as my right tires left the pavement I discovered that the saturated Palouse loess had thawed substantially.  Four wheel drive or not, it won't matter.  Gigantic 4 x 4 farm tractors with six foot diameter wheels get stuck fast in this stuff.  The road bed was steep enough that my pickup just slid sideways and dug in deep.  My front bumper was resting on the gravel.

Zero cellular coverage and it's 22:30.  Time for a little hike, to where I can acquire the Kamiak Butte tower.  OK, it's a nice night.  Multiple calls to the house and no answer.  Randomly, as my wife's phone is ringing, Son came down to get a drink or something and he answered, so I got him to come pick me up.

This morning I walked downtown to the one local auto shop to see if I could get a tow.  Nope.  That person was out of town.  Tried the one market where they know me, to ask if any of them had a heavy 4 x 4.  You know that wall that appears between you and another person when they just don't want to deal with anything you're saying?  Yeah.  Tried the city hall, where we all know each other.  There's that wall again.

Walking toward the house, going through my options, along comes a rusty 1970s Chevy pickup with a winch in the front.  They wave, as is common in a small town, and I hand signal "come over here".  Inside are two men, eyeing me suspiciously while eating brunch in the truck.  "Is this a four wheel drive?" I ask, as there are no manual locking hubs.
"Yup" comes the answer after a few seconds pause and some eye-balling. 
"Want to make a couple of bucks for about ten minutes work?"

So we talk back and forth as they explain that they'd seen my pickup and said to themselves as they drove by that they'd do it for a hundred bucks, and that you never know if you're going to break something doing something like that, and so on.  They hem and haw and after a long pause they agree to it, so I squeeze into the short cab and we head off.  Now they're concerned about what John Law might do if he sees us.  That was odd, but I explained that I'd take any heat, and that it wouldn't be problem anyway.  I also reassured them that there'd be no hard feelings or anything like that if they decided not to attempt the pull-out after they saw how bad it was.

No problem.  Once they got there and saw that my truck was in fact dug in up to the bumpers, on a steep incline, they took it upon themselves to get it out as a matter of pride.  These are my people.  They forgot all about the 20 dollars they had demanded in advance, and set to it.

There was much discussion, as is the tradition in these situations, about the best way to approach the task-- where to connect the winch, where to locate the rescue vehicle, what gears to use, and so on.  Three pulls-- two nasty, poppy, pingy ones with the winch (with dirt and rust flying off the cable as it sings soprano) to get my truck out of the hole, and then a long pull with a tow strap off their trailer hitch.  Bingo.  These guys had done this before.  Of course we have to chat for a bit, and then I whip out my wallet only to discover that I didn't have that twenty I thought I had.  They didn't seem too worried, and agreed to follow me back into town to the bank.

As I hand them two twenties (I figured they deserved it) and we exchange thanks, they start up their old Chevy--  "Brrr................rr....rr....rrrOOOOMMM."  It barely started, like it was maybe a one in ten proposition at best.  Maybe they can use that forty bucks toward a new battery.  Yes; these are my people.  Thanks, two brothers, from a small town in North Idaho that you wouldn't even notice as you drive by it except for the road sign, who just happened by in a small town in Eastern Washington.

And the mission was entirely successful, even if it took 12 hours to complete-- I got the junk off the roadway, and with some help, got my muddy butt out of there.

I have the software for this. I just don’t have a way of integrating it with the proper hardware. It sounds really nice:

The next generation of battlefield optics will empower infantrymen to hit enemy targets from twice the effective range of the M4 carbine if Defense Department scientists get their way.

This summer, officials at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are scheduled to begin testing prototypes of the Dynamic Image Gunsight Optic, known as "DInGO."

…

Currently, the device weighs about a pound and is approximately five inches long, three inches wide and three inches high, Wojnar said. It has a digital micro display that originated in the cell phone industry.

I know there are similar devices on the market now but the ones I have seen are larger and more appropriate for the .50 BMG or at least a .30 caliber rifle. Something small and compact for an AR-15 class rifle would be nice.

H/T to reader Richard R.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Martin Luther King, Jr.
[And we see that today in the way Washington D.C. and Chicago cling to their oppressive gun laws.—Joe]

I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it.

Matthew Quigley:
From the movie Quigley Down Under after Quigley uses a handgun for the first time in the movie with surprising results.
[This is my all time favorite movie. And this is probably the best line in the movie. As both a long range rifle shooter and a pretty good pistol shooter I really, really relate to this movie.

Then there is the the thing about a co-worker watching the movie after my recommendation and he said, “I know why you like that movie. It’s because you are Quigley.” That’s overstating things some. But perhaps not so much that I can’t see a little bit of truth in it.—Joe]

Well I guess it's official, with that PSA during some big sports game or other over the weekend, Clint Eastwood has joined the Occupy movement.  What I don't understand is the surprise expressed out there.  I never figured Eastwood for a tea partier.  Far from it.

The Catholic Church seems to be standing up to some small part of ObamaCare.  Odd.  As near as I could tell these last several decades, they've been on board with most Progressive ideas.  Oops.  I guess they didn't think it through.  Oh well.  May the backpedaling be strong and long lived.  So if they get a waiver for their religious beliefs, you know what comes next.  That's right--  Millions of brand new "Jack Catholics".  "Yeah, Mr. Bureaucrat Doofus, I converted, like three seconds ago, as soon as I learned that I could get a waiver."  So I guess the next step would be a requirement for some sort of official certification of membership from the church, etc., etc.  Measures, countermeasures.  As always in any statist system, we have, officially, different sets of "rights" for different classes of citizens.

If you want to get Gay Married, forget the lobbying, the sign carrying, the stupid politicians and the dog and pony shows and come to Moscow, Idaho.  I'll marry the two of you.  My fee is fifty dollars.  Of course I'll require that each of you sign a legal document, transferring all your future earnings and assets to the other, and likewise with power of attorney.  No double standards here.  If you ever want a divorce, you'll need a team of lawyers to decide who gets the house, the cars, the fashion design show, the various bank accounts, etc.  You want equality, you can have it.  But that was never what you really wanted, was it?  Right now you have the best of all worlds-- you can shack up with no legal or financial consequences, and split up easily and relatively pain free.  With marriage it's a whole different ball game, kids, and with marriage comes common law marriage too.  But I guess it's about the money either way you look at it.  Spousal benefits are nice, but there's always another side to it.  You sure you've thought this through?  Depending on what state you live in, how many of your past relationships could have resulted in a separation that would involve lawyers and splitting up of the financial and other assets?  Really?  You want this?  No.  You don't, but you've been led to believe that you do.  Suckers.  Anyway; my offer still stands, if you think you have the guts.  I have no legal authority of course, but it's about the commitment anyway.  Until death do you part, and we can combine your assets through simple, easy legal means.  If I had my druthers, I'd get the government sanctioning nonsense OUT of my marriage.  My personal life is not their business.  Leave me alone.  I just can't identify with people who are dying to get the government IN to their private lives.

I’m very pleased to report that after running a sample of our existing stock of potassium chlorate through a blender the problems appear to be solved:

Barron has his own report of our tests.

Also of interest is that I talked to our supplier on Friday and discovered that we can order whatever grade and class of potassium chlorate we want. That probably means we won’t have this problem again and can use our existing stock for private parties and miscellaneous testing when we have the more time to run it through a blender.

A gun is psychologically a penis-substitute and a symbol of power: the age-range of toy-shop clientele begins at about six or seven, rises sharply just before puberty and declines soon after the discovery of the phallus and its promise of power. From then on, guns are for kids and for the effete freaks and misfits who must seek psycho-orgasmic relief by shooting pheasants.

Adam Hall
The Quiller Memorandum, page 101 (hardcover version).
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

There is not a shadow of doubt, none whatsoever, that the 2nd amendment as written and as intended by the Founders has nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun. That is absolute and not open to the slightest interpretation.

Marc Rubin
August 2, 2010
Supreme Court Ruling on 2nd Amendment Proves Conservative Hypocrisy and Dishonesty
[I wonder if Rubin thinks Alan Dershowitz are Laurence Tribe are conservatives and lesser constitutional scholars than he?

My hypothesis is that Rubin has crap for brains.—Joe]

Can't we Americans here at home do something to lift the gun terror from our schools, playgrounds, parking lots, malls, post offices, housing projects, highways and the grim reaches of our cities where the police must risk their lives to uphold the law?

Of course we can. What we have to do now is to free ourselves from one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century.

This mighty country stands paralyzed in the face of an ever-spreading plague of guns. This national calamity we owe to the leaders of the National Rifle Association in Washington. With a tenacity and ferocity worthy of a better cause, they have fought every proposal, however moderate, to bring the menace under control.

In this endeavor, their principal weapon has been the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- or, rather, their version of the Second Amendment.

That amendment, they have insisted, gives everyone an absolute constitutional right to have every kind of firearm. Brandishing that "right," spending millions in lobbying and legal maneuvers and threatening doom to politicians who would oppose them, they have killed or stalled gun control initiatives in Congress, state legislatures and city governments.

At last, however, the nation is on the move.

…

Now the great Second Amendment hoax can be nailed once and for all if the rank-and-file of the NRA and other responsible citizens will master one simple truth: The Second Amendment means what the courts say it means. It does not mean what the NRA leaders have been telling the nation all these years.

Wallace Carroll
July 4, 1993
To End the Gun Terror, End the Second Amendment Hoax
[Those were the dark days of gun rights activism. That was the attitude nearly everywhere in the media and many of the politicians. Guns were a terror, a plague, a menace, and a national calamity. The standard view of the Second Amendment was a hoax, a lie, and a fraud.

I agree with one thing he said. The Second Amendment means what the courts say it means.

The problem for Mr. Carroll is that he was, probably deliberately, misreading the Miller decision and ignoring the Cruikshank decision. The Heller decision made things much more difficult for people like Carroll to distort. The question is now that the courts have agreed with the NRA on the meaning of the Second Amendment does Carroll still insist that the meaning of the Second Amendment is what the courts say it is? Or does he now insist that the Supreme Court has perpetuated a fraud on the American people as well?

Or does Carroll now admit it was he that was the hoaxer or at least the one that fell for a fraud?—Joe]

Someone I know carries a Vz. 52 pistol OWB.  It hangs out in the open almost all of the time.  After several days of wet weather, the pistol was rusted.  Oops.  It looked horrific (sorry - no pictures).  Rust on the barrel, between the recoil spring and barrel especially, and rust on the outside where it contacted the holster.  Even some of the cartridges had rust on them from the magazines.  After taking it down, almost to the last pin and the last screw, it cleaned up very well.  Nothing serious this time. I'm sure the piece would have functioned, though metal oxides can be extremely abrasive.  It could get really bad if left in the holster for a longer time.

Be careful out there if you OC.  My pistol is almost always covered at least by a shirt and I've never seen signs of rust on it, so I've never thought much about it.  I have left a Winchester carbine in the vehicle for weeks at a time, and in very cold weather condensation can get between the metal and the gun case interior, causing rust at all the contact points.  So you have to take extra care.  The Parkerizing on the Colt seems to handle it much better, and the annodizing of course is already a hard metal oxide, but you want to be checking these things.

Implementation of SkyNet and the Terminator are a little behind the original schedule but progress is still being made:

"The team actually started out by building a retina and they came to me and said: 'Look, it responds to these optical illusions the same way a human does. They put another layer of cells behind that it started to find features, They put another layer, it started to find corners or oriented lines or something, another layer, it started to find patterns," Jacobs said.

"Today it tracks objects. It's actually not programmed, it's taught."

Jacobs laughed at the silence in the room, conceding he evokes images of "The Terminator."

SkyNet building blocks are falling into place as well:

The long term future belongs to optical interconnects, low power processors and new kinds of memory architectures, said Prith Banerjee, director of HP Labs in a DesignCon keynote here.

Banerjee described the path to a terabyte/second optical bus as one step toward its vision of future systems architectures. Engineers need to embrace the new technologies to deal with the coming flood of digital data, he said.

“By 2020 your end customer will be living in a world where people access 50 zettabytes of data from 30 billion cellphones and 1.3 trillion sensors--and all that data will have to be analyzed by computer architectures you have to design,” he told a packed audience here.

If you haven't thought anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.

Sean
February 2, 2012
Comment to Unreasonable searches.
[Since it is from Sean you know it was sarcasm.

You also know it's coming.—Joe]

This time of year our school shooting team gets together, I bring several guns into our local school and teach the kids how best to participate in school shootings.  This year I had 15 boys and girls in class - a pretty good percentage of the total enrollment in our small town high school.

As part of the class, which consists in large part of excerpts from the NRA Basic Home Firearm Safety course, I ask them to state some of the various reasons one might own firearms.  One of the girls chimed in with, "Space alien invasion?!"

I like these kids.  I didn't bother to point out that their puny, crude, chemically powered kinetic energy weapons would be no match for the phase modulated space-time disrupters of the enemy.

Earlier, I had asked my daughter if she planned to join the trap shooting team this year, but she declined.  After last night's class, she asked me how it went, and now I get the impression that she is having second thoughts;  "But I can't shoot well enough."
"Well, you know I can teach you, and you'll be as good as most of the others after one day..."
"But now it's too late."  Which it is-- they need to have already passed their hunter safety class.

So next year I figure she'll be right in there.  We'll see.  Several of her friends are already avid participants in mass school shootings (some of the meets involve well over a hundred shooters, from several school districts).  I bet you don't see those trap meets covered in your local news station sports reports, do you?

ETA; The kids seemed to respond well to the variation; "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch".  I associate it with Uncle, but I don't know for sure where it originated.

Numerous individuals, known as straw buyers, were recruited to buy AK-47 like semi-automatic firearms. These firearms were then sent to Mexico for use by a drug cartel.

One of the firearms in the hands of the cartel was used in a shooting which resulted in the death of a U.S. law enforcement official.

Sound familiar?

Okay. Well this is probably something you haven't heard. The perpetrator, Manuel Gomez Barba, of Baytown, Texas, has been sentenced to 100 months for the exportation of the 44 firearms.

The ATF illegally exported something on the order of 2000 firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Does that mean those criminals will receive 2000/44 x 100 months (~380 years) in prison for their crimes?

I don't think so. Tar and feathers might also be considered appropriate but also have a near zero chance of coming to pass.

I claim retirement at full pay with bonuses will be the most likely outcome.

The administration that took military action in Libya without any authorization from force from Congress, that appointed czars with policymaking authority without Congressional confirmation, and that made ‘recess’ appointments while Congress was not in recess is invoking executive privilege to cover how the Department of Justice reacted when Congress began asking about a gun-trafficking operation that got U.S. law enforcement officers murdered by Mexican drug cartels.

All from a president who railed against a runaway imperial presidency when George W. Bush sat in the office he currently occupies.

Jim Geraghty
February 2, 2012
Eric Holder Should Become a Campaign Issue Today
[H/T to Say Uncle.

I've had admitted Marxist's tell me, "We just need to have the right people in charge." The problem is that power always attracts the people that can least be trusted with that power.

The only option is to not give anyone that much power. I don't understand why this lesson has to be taught again and again. People have understood this since at least 1776.—Joe]

I could see the day when the government attempts to get a search warrant for your thoughts:

A group of neuroscientists at the University of California, Berkeley, reported they may have come up with a scientific way to read people’s minds.

They can already demand blood samples so why not connect you up to a machine to see if you have anti-government thoughts or knowledge of a crime?

Didn’t they fall to the ground?

Robert Mahler
Assistant Crown attorney in Ontario, Canada
January 31, 2012
Court adjourns homeowner’s self-defence trial to clarify confusing gun control law
This was referring to the shell casing from a .38 caliber revolver. Mahler was prosecuting a man for firing three shots to scare off masked men who were throwing "firebombs" (Molotov Cocktails) at his house.
[Not only is the prosecutor so ignorant of firearms that he believed revolvers automatically eject spent shell casings but the government initially attempted to prosecute him for defending himself and his home. The video of the three guys calmly walking around throwing the "firebombs" apparently was going to hinder the case of the prosecution so they dropped that charge. They then charged the victim with "careless storage of a firearm".

I am of the opinion the prosecutor should be charged with crimes against humanity. Everyone knows you have a right to defend yourself against a violent attack. For the prosecutor to use the force of government to intimidate people who exercise such an obvious natural right warrants an extremely harsh response. And for the prosecutor to base a significant portion of his case on the belief that a revolver automatically ejects it's shell casings qualifies him for a "Crap for Brains" mention.—Joe]