#IWillNotComply rally in Olympia

I drove to Olympia today to participate in the rally against law created with I-594. We had a decent turn out. I didn’t stay for the entire thing but it seemed to go very well from what I could tell. People were participating with the speakers and the Washington State Patrol officers present looked bored:


I’m putting the rest of the pictures “below the fold” so that it doesn’t create long load times for the main page for the next week.

Continue reading

Quote of the day—Dave Workman

Just as it is none of the government’s business who peacefully protests in a public setting, First Amendment advocates seem to insist, it is equally none of the government’s business – or anyone else’s – when someone harmlessly exercises the right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment activists might argue. Do they have a legitimate point?

The Stranger habitually sneers at Second Amendment activists and, exercising the First Amendment right of free speech and the press, clearly advocated placing the “universal background check” restriction on gun owners. The Stranger is a popular alternative newspaper among Seattle’s far left, the folks who overwhelmingly voted for I-594. It was not their right being stepped on.

How many of those attorneys and public defenders and newspaper editorialists voted for I-594? If they don’t understand the parallels between restricting peaceful protest and being photographed by the police, and building records on gun owners, then they shouldn’t be practicing law or pounding keyboards for a living.

Dave Workman
December 12, 2014
Is it time to treat the First Amendment just like the Second?
[Lyle has often said the political left understands how rights are supposed to work. But I think we have sufficient evidence now that is not true. Do you think progressives understand how the First Amendment is supposed to work? Really? If so then explain to me why we are nearly 600 days into the IRS scandal with none of the perpetrators in jail or even indicted?

I do not believe progressives have respect for individual rights. They only claim rights when people engage in activities that advance the cause of the collective. As THE Clint Black tweeted a few days ago:

Your government arms dictators.

Your government arms “rebels”.

Your government arms terrorists.

Your government prefers you unarmed.

How else do you explain this?

Here’s another example: There are about 8000 murders each year in the U.S. that are committed using a firearm. Using the most conservative estimates there are about 80 million gun owners. Assuming the worst case, suppose each of the murders was committed by a different person (way wrong, at Newtown there were 26 murders by just one person) you still end up with the odds of some random (and they are certainly NOT random) gun owner being a murderer in a given year at 0.01%. Yet they insist we should be registered and every time a gun changes hands we should request permission from the government and submit paperwork documenting the exchange. And this is even in those cases where the recipient already owns one or more guns. No rational person can believe this will make society safer so their must be another reason. I can only think of two possible explanations for this behavior:

  1. These people have serious mental defects.
  2. These people have evil intent.

In either case we have only unpleasant options available to us.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gavin de Becker

No woman should obtain a restraining order unless she believes it will help her circumstance no mater what police may say. The fact that so many of these murderers also commit suicide tells us something. It tells us that refusing to accept rejection is more important to them than life itself. By the time they reach this point are they really going to be deterred by a court order? A glib response is that the temporary restraining order can’t make things worse.

But here’s the rub. The restraining order does hurt by convincing the woman that she is safe. The bottom line is that there is really only one good reason to get a restraining order in the case of wife abuse. And that is that the woman believes the man will honor it and leave her alone.

If a victim or a professional in the system gets a restraining order to stop someone from committing murder they have probably applied the wrong strategy.

Gavin de Becker
The Gift of Fear and Other Survival Signals that Protect Us From Violence
[This is an excellent book. It was recommended to me by Rolf (and here). Ignore the few times Becker drops some anti-gun nonsense into it. With his personal history I almost give him a pass. Everyone I have convinced to read (or listen to) this book have told me it was awesome.

The last sentence it the money quote. If someone is not deterred by the penalties associated with murder you can be absolutely certain they will not be deterred by the penalties associated with the violation of a restraining order. The only method of prevention is to make it physically impossible to commit the murder. This gives us only three options to save the life of the innocent victim:

  1. The perpetrator is incarcerated or executed prior to assault.
  2. The intended victim cannot be found by the perpetrator.
  3. Physical force is used to defend the innocent victim before the assault has caused permanent injury or death.

We do not have a Department of PreCrime so the first option is off the table.

The second option is extremely difficult, expensive, and requires a very challenging change in lifestyle if you have a smart and determined pursuer. The physical and emotional costs associated with this option may be out of the reach of many people.

The third option requires people with guns. If they cannot afford hiring others to protect them then they will have to protect themselves. There is no substitute for a gun. Embedding multiple jacketed hollow-points in an attacker is not a guarantee that a victim will escape injury, or even survive, but it does dramatically improve the odds.

No anti-gun person can sincerely claim they are concerned about the safety of women who are being pursued by people intent upon violence unless they value the safety of the attacker more than that of the intended victim. These people either have an extraordinarily warped and dysfunctional sense of morality and/or they are incapable of rational thought.—Joe]


Tonight I was telling Barb about a Twitter conversation I got involved in with a soon to be Markley’s Law example. At some point Barb asked how long I have been doing the Markley’s Law Monday theme.

I looked it up and found the first Markley’s Law Monday was almost exactly three years ago. I’m not in any danger of ever running out of material.

I am reminded of a quote falsely attributed to Albert Einstein:

The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

No matter how often we point out that we have Supreme Court decision on our side and the best they have to offer are childish insults we probably will never run out of people demonstrating Markley’s Law. There is apparently an unlimited supply of those who insist that the right to keep and bear arms is not an inalienable, preexisting, human right guaranteed to be protected the Second Amendment but is instead a symbolic penis extension.

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

The essence of the “weapon of choice” argument is that, because criminals and madmen use these guns to commit crimes, the law- abiding must give them up. But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.

By criminalizing an act that is not wrong in itself the purchase and sale of a firearm the ban violates the presumption of innocence, the principle that insures that government honors the liberty of its citizens until their deeds convict them. By completely banning the sale of assault weapons to prevent crime before it occurs, the law effectively and irrebuttably presumes that all who want such a weapon are no better than murderers or madmen, forever ineligible to acquire these firearms.

Obviously, a law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on principle that the conduct of criminals dictates the scope of liberty the law will allow to the rest of society, in no sense “fights” crime. It is, instead, a capitulation to crime, born of a society in full-bore retreat from crime, a society fearful of and desperately accommodating itself to crime.

Jeff Snyder
August 25, 1994
The Washington Times, page A19.
Who’s Under Assault in the Assault Weapon Ban?
[H/T to Craig in the comments.

This same argument can be used against almost any law that presumes to “prevent crime” rather than punish acts which injury others. I’m specifically thinking of I-594 in Washington state but the application is far broader.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dana Loesch

Anti-Second Amendment advocates argue that because violent criminals have black market access to firearms, law abiding innocents should not. They argue that because rapists and murderers may illegally possess firearms the law abiding innocent women and men should not carry them. They don’t defend your Constitutionally protected choice and instead better enable the choice of criminal to make you a statistic.

They want to be able to have a choice as what to do after you’ve been raped. But want to restrict your choices of how to prevent your rape.

Dana Loesch
Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America
[I recently finished listening to this book and was quite impressed. Usually in a book of this type I find little new material and a significant number of errors. That was not true in this case. I seem to recall one minor error but I didn’t write it down and I don’t recall what it was now.

I addition to detailing her personal fights with anti-Second Amendment advocates, such as Piers Morgan and Shannon Watts, she articulated sound arguments and gave insightful analysis to both the principles and factual data regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

I have many more QOTDs in the queue from this great book. Thank you Ms. Loesch.—Joe]

Cruise ship security

Barb and I really enjoyed going on a cruise last February and have been talking to various people about where our next cruise should be. I’m not very happy about the government regulating transportation security even more than they already do:

The Coast Guard is considering new airport-like security procedures on cruise ships, the agency said Tuesday.

After consulting with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard is proposing new pre-boarding screening requirements for passengers, crew members, and their luggage.

The pre-boarding requirements could resemble those seen at airports and would include a list of prohibited items.

The individual cruise lines and ships should be making these decisions. Not the government. What exactly does the government think it is going to prevent? Passengers have access to sharp knives, matches, lighters, and with a little bit of effort probably even fire axes and liquid fuels.

From reading part of the proposed rulemaking  it appears they want to standardize the procedures and the list of prohibited items. But “one size fits all” security procedures works as well as “one size fits all” clothes.

It’s clear these people view the lessons of the USSR Central Committee as a how-to manual rather than a dystopia.


A few minutes ago I discovered you would be redirected from my blog to a URL that looked like this:


Where the query string item ‘rnd’ had a different value each time you tried to visit my page. It appears to have been some sort of malware associated with Sitemeter. I remove Sitemeter and the problem went away.

Sorry about that.

But this may explain the complaints I have occasionally received from readers about popup ads here. There should not be any here. But if someone was able to infect Sitemeter’s scripts then such a thing is possible.

The domain registration info is as follows:

Registrant Name: Lee Sautia
Registrant Organization: Vindico LLC
Registrant Street: 245 5th Ave., 21st Floor
Registrant City: New York
Registrant State/Province: New York
Registrant Postal Code: 10016
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.6468332940
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: domains@vindicogroup.com

Using vindicogroup.com as an URL redirects to http://vindico.com/. This website claims they do behavior based video advertising. I would like to inform them that it is not surprising to me that such slimy behavior as theirs originated from someone in New York City and my behavior is to have nothing to do with them.


Via Weer’d Beard we have this from Baldr Odinson:


It’s not exactly Markley’s Law but it’s close.

When they have all but given up on concealed carry and resort to insults like this about open carry you know they are getting really desperate to get even temporary attention and have completely lost relevancy.

Quote of the day—Tam

Wow, Mark, that was nearly wrong in every particular! It bordered on fractally wrong, in that every little piece, taken by itself, was as wrong as the whole.

December 7, 2014
[I read Mark Morford’s troll piece and briefly considered blogging about it. But I prefer to blog about things that either no one has noticed yet or that I have a quasi-unique viewpoint on. And this piece has been well covered by many others. This is just a small sample:

I had completely dismissed it as blog material. Morford is just too easy of a target and I have dealt with him at length before. Then I read the last sentence I quoted above of Tam’s. Wow!

I have seen this sort of thing many times before but didn’t have a name for it. Fractally wrong. I like it. I like it a lot.—Joe]

Is this better?

A few days ago I posted this image and asked “What does this look like?


I have updated the image to this:


In addition to tracing over the top of an image of an actual supersonic bullet in flight I simplified things some. I have a strong tendency to dive deep into details when it isn’t necessary and even when it is counter productive. This represents a lot of restraint on my part.

As some people guessed this was for an update for my ballistics program, Field Ballistics, for Windows Phone. There are some other changes as well. The most important of the changes:

  • Elevation measurements are expressible in mils as well as MOA
  • Native support in various resolutions for Windows Phone 8.0.
  • When the “Wide Tile” is pinned to the start page it show the current conditions, cartridge, and target selected.
  • All of Hornady’s match ammo has been added to the “Factory” cartridges.

If you have it installed on your Windows 8.x phone it may have already updated automatically. If not then go to this link to update.

Quote of the day—Travis Dodge‏ @MWTravesty

What about my right to not live in fear of my fellow citizens? Is that moot because you have a boner for guns?

Travis Dodge‏ @MWTravesty
Tweeted on October 16, 2014
[It’s (sort of) another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.

Dodge obviously doesn’t understand rights when he says he has a “right to not live in fear”. There are people afraid of gays, blacks, and Jews as well as gun owners. But that fear doesn’t allow them to infringe upon our rights.—Joe]

Quote of the day—AllynF

The cheap and easy availability of guns in any home in America makes it very easy for criminals to get their hands on as many weapons as they choose. All they have to do is break in and steal them and create their free market of stolen guns on the street –quite the active and ongoing enterprise. Shhhhhh…this is a truthful point that upsets Conservatives if you even dare to bring it up and burst their bubble. They like to pretend that there is no cause and effect that results from that.

December 6, 2014
Comment on Gun Control, Real Time with Bill Maher.
[Got that? Criminals “get their hands on as many weapons as the choose” because private citizens possess guns in their homes. The specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is the root of all problems with guns.

If banning the private possession of something would solve the problems associated with it then banning alcohol, cigarettes, and recreational drugs would solve problems too. AllynF has no respect for the Bill of Rights, no concept of guns being useful for the protection of innocent life, and at best a tenuous connection with reality.

Don’t let anyone ever get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Remington clarification

Here are some of the headlines from the lamestreet media (phrase stolen from Alan Korwin):

Never trust the media to get things right. Especially in relation to firearms. Here is what Remington says, via a Tweet from greenmeanie:

HOUSTON, Dec. 6, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — On Dec. 5, 2014, papers were filed seeking approval of a proposed settlement of two economic class-action lawsuits of certain Remington bolt-action centerfire firearms that contain either a Walker trigger mechanism, or a trigger mechanism which utilizes a “trigger connector.”

The filings triggered multiple news reports that mistakenly conveyed the proposed agreement in significant fashions that require immediate clarification.

  • These settlements are not recalls.
  • These settlements are not any admission that the products are defective or unsafe.
  • These settlements are an opportunity for any concerned consumers who have the Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722 and 725 rifles with either a Walker trigger mechanism, or a trigger mechanism which utilizes a “trigger connector” to have Remington install a new trigger.
  • The benefits under the settlement, including the trigger replacement program, will not be in place until after court approval of the settlement and full notice will go out at that time.
  • This culminates from extensive mediator-supervised negotiations between lawyers for those concerned about the triggers and Remington, who while denying there is any cause for concern, always desires to ensure that its customers are satisfied with Remington products.

    A joint press release will be issued to better explain details of the proposed settlement.

    For further information, contact: Mark Lanier at wml@LanierLawFirm.com; 800-723-3216

    SOURCE Lanier Law Firm

    Which is better?

    This is a slight refinement from something son James and I discussed a few days ago.

    When debating which is a better political system we can point to many instances where anti-freedom systems (communists/socialists/progressives/fascists/theocracies/kingdoms/dictatorships/etc.) have been implemented and review the outcomes of those experiments. A significant proportion of those experiments have resulted in a tragedies of epic proportions. A short list from the last 100 years includes USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Nazi Germany, and Romania.

    So what are the worst examples of a freedom based political system and how do those compare to the worst of the anti-freedom? I don’t know what my political opponents would give for examples. Would it be the United States? If so, then that little debate would be settled in two minutes or less. Why risk those tragedies when the worst you can do with a freedom based system is so much better?

    Taking that tactic a little further we can also ask the question, “What are the best outcomes of a particular type of political system?” For a freedom advocate the United States surely would be near the top of the list with the probable additions of Canada, and many of the countries of Western Europe. I suspect the anti-freedom advocate will include many of the socialist leaning, but generally free countries, of Western Europe.

    Rate each of the various countries on some scale from good to bad. This can be used to create a chart with upper and lower bounds of the outcomes. It might look something like this:


    So, which system is the better choice? The answer is obvious.

    This technique can be use to compare just about anything. In general compare the upper and lower bounds of the two (or more) proposals being debated.

    Comparing gun control utopias to gun owner utopias will be left as an exercise for the reader.

    Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

    the attempted commercial introduction of the Armatix has floundered so badly that it remains the sole example that Brady can cite as even approximating a “smart gun.”  Thus, were it to trigger the New Jersey law, the result would surely collide with the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.  There, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes.  Even the Brady Campaign cannot seriously argue that all handguns other than the iP1, an $1800, 10- shot pistol chambered in .22LR, are not commonly used for lawful purposes.

    December 4, 2014
    N.J. Attorney General Rejects Brady Campaign Bid to Trigger Handgun Ban
    [Elaborating even further, it seems likely the entire NJ law will declared unconstitutional simply because it makes illegal those guns which are in common use.—Joe]

    Black lives matter

    That is one of the communists’ protest lines. But of course they don’t mean it, and Glenn Beck proves it.

    They did a great job this morning.

    By their lack of response to, or even discussion of, the high crime and violence rates in some of our Democrat-controlled cities, Obama and Company, Van Jones and other mayors, and the left in general, reveal their true intentions. They don’t give a DAMN about black lives. In fact, they continue to push harder for more of the same garbage that helped to create the problem, and they will not stop. They can not stop, for to stop making things worse would require the abandonment of their entire narrative AND trillions of dollars in confiscation and re-distribution schemes.

    They’re trapped, in a sense. Everything they’ve striven for in the last 100+ years is going to come crashing in on them. Some of them actually want that. Not one of them understands the implications.