I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.
This is why we have a Bill of Rights. This is why I created Boomershoot.
The FBI is buying up information that can be used to track people’s movement and location history, Director Kash Patel said during a Senate hearing Wednesday.
…
The U.S. Supreme Court has required law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant for getting people’s location data from cell phone providers since 2018, but data brokers offer an alternative avenue by purchasing the information directly.
Alfred Ng
March 18, 2026
FBI is buying data that can be used to track people, Patel says – POLITICO
And with your location information they know things about you even your closest friends do not know. Even if you are couch surfing trying to avoid giving up your location, they know where you live. They know if you were in the vicinity of that January 6th riot. They know if you were scouting the house where four University of Idaho students were murdered. They know you visit the gay bath house a couple times a month when you tell your wife you are working late. They know you are part of the “Underground Railroad” for slaves/wetbacks/Jews/dads-with-child-custody problems.
We live in interesting times.
5G phones have settled into common use and now 6G is on the drawing boards. So, what will be in the 6G feature set?
Read about it here: The 6G vision: Fewer dead zones, smarter networks, and built-in ‘radar’.
This looks to a scary feature:
One of the planned new features in 6G is called Integrated Sensing and Communication, or ISAC.
“It’s the big talking point that’s getting the most attention right now. ISAC means that we will no longer see the mobile network as just a way to transport data. Instead, radio waves will be transformed into a sensor, a kind of radar. The network can ‘see’ and measure distance, speed, and movement with centimeter precision without the devices needing GPS or cameras. This opens doors for everything from traffic monitoring to fall detection in healthcare,” says Mikael Gidlund, professor at Mid Sweden University.
The idea that all mobile phone masts could be able to sense their physical surroundings and detect presence or movement may sound like science fiction — and also like a nightmare from a privacy perspective. This is something Mikael Gidlund is well aware of.
“This is one of the most important technical challenges that must be solved for the technology to gain acceptance. The goal is to design the system according to the principle of ‘privacy by design.’ ISAC works like a radar, not a camera. It works with anonymous point clouds rather than biometric data. We can see that someone has fallen and needs help, but not who it is. By allowing data processing to take place locally in the mast and building technical barriers to identification directly into the standard, we can actually increase privacy by replacing cameras in sensitive environments. Anonymization is not an option — it is a technical prerequisite for trust.
They are saying some of the right words and phrases. But if they have centimeter resolution, it probably means this tech will enable the detection of people who carry guns. If they can tell if someone has fallen, they can tell if two or a group of people are having sex.
I find it telling they enumerate some potential benefits, but then lump all the downside into “privacy.” And just because they don’t know who someone is, if they can detect a person who as fallen, then I’m almost certain they can track an individual person. And if they can be tracked, privacy just disappeared.
As a first step, what needs to be done is to enumerate all the ways this technology could be abused and apply “privacy by design” to those use cases. My intuition tells me there will not be much left in the benefits category once they have eliminated the potential for abuse.
According to Daniel Fritter of the Canadian firearm magazine Calibre, as of early 2026 the amount spent on the gun grab program is CAD$779.8 million, an amount that exceeds the original estimated cost by more than 300 percent.
Fritter refers to government sources showing that “the current known, documented cost to the taxpayer” per gun surrendered or confiscated is approximately CAD$25,000, with the “undocumented cost being even higher” because the “costs accrued by more than a dozen partner agencies” involved haven’t been included.
To place that per-gun price tag into context, Public Safety Canada has advised that it intends to pay out an average of CAD$1,800 per gun, making the gun grab’s administrative cost per firearm significantly over CAD$20,000…and likely more.
However, the few people who participated in the federal government’s initial rollout of the program for individual gun owners in November were reportedly paid far less, around CAD$700 per gun, increasing the already astonishing imbalance between the cost of administration and compensation. Nothing has been publicly released about the make, model and compensation paid for each confiscated gun collected then and whether these were truly the “weapons of war” that the Liberals used to justify the gun grab. The government “released records that were almost entirely blacked out” in response to a freedom of information request.
Canada’s gun owners have overwhelmingly rejected the gun grab: “somewhere between just 1.6 and 6 percent of newly prohibited firearms in circulation have been declared,” states Fritter. An increasing number of jurisdictions have taken the “ten-foot barge pole” approach to participation, too.
NRA ILA
March 16, 2026
Canada’s Spending More Than $20,000 in Administrative Costs Per Confiscated Gun in Its Bloated ‘Compensation’ Scheme – Shooting News Weekly
With such an incredibly high “administrative cost” per gun confiscated you have to wonder if the primary purpose is to fill the pockets of the criminal politicians.
In any case, with less than 6% of the guns being turned over you have to give Canadian gun owners some credit for the risks they are taking. I wish them luck.
I found this in my blob comment spam folder:
That quote really hit home for me—there’s something profound about how disconnected so many people are from where their food comes from. Growing up on a farm, I learned early on that every meal starts with work, whether it’s planting, tending, or harvesting. It’s a different mindset than the office world you described, where the focus is more on systems and security than on the actual source of what sustains us. Appreciate you bringing that contrast into focus.
The clues that indicate this was spam are not convincing in the body of the comment. The only things I see that is a hint is the “—” and that the comment is bland with a gentle positive tone. But it is not the type of thing I would see a year or two ago.* The comment is targeted for the specific blog post. Had the real clues not been present and it made it past the spam filter I would have let it slide.
The real clues as to this being AI are here:
qwenart
0 approved
qwenimg.artx
support@qwenimg.art
152.53.88.152
I suspect the spam filter recognizes these components individually, and/or as a set.
Just so you know, even if an AI comment gets caught by the spam filter and it is as good as or better than some of my real readers, I usually release it for everyone to read.
* I still get some of the old obvious stuff such this:
wow i really like this article, very well detailed and a lot of time is invested in this. keep up the good work and i will be checking back for new update. thanx https://moldremediationwilmingtonnc.com/
Mold Remediation Wilmington NC
0 approved
Mold%20Remediation%20Wilmington%20NCx
wilhelm_dolorem@gmail.com
212.30.36.77
If lifespan increases simply because one major disease is delayed, then longer survival does not automatically mean that aging itself has slowed. For example, an intervention that extends the lifespan of mice by delaying cancer is fundamentally different from one that slows the gradual decline of many body systems, even if both produce similar survival curves.
Genomic Press
March 13, 2026
Scientists Say Conquering Age-Related Diseases Could Dramatically Extend Human Life
When stated this way it is obviously true. One might be tempted to make light of this. But correctly expressing something obvious can be very difficult when no one has ever had the viewpoint from which the truth is obvious.
The article this QOTD came from is an example of something I have talked about before: The necessity of an accurate problem statement. You can call it a simple thing. But it may be a profound change in mindset which enables rapid progress toward a far better solution.
I would like to thank my engineering professors from several decades ago for this enlightenment. One of the first things taught in Engineering 101 was how to write an engineering report. And the first thing in a such a report was the problem statement. That problem statement was to be written before you took your slide rule out of its case or looked up the gain bandwidth product of the cool new operational amplifier you heard about a few days ago and were itching to find a use for.
This can be illustrated more simply with the adage, “Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding.” Technically, this tendency is a form of cognitive bias called Law of the instrument. Writing an accurate problem statement is one means to overcome this bias.
This simple thing can make a huge difference in every problem you need to solve. It is not limited to aging, gun owner rights, politics, interpersonal relationships, or engineering. First, think about what you are trying to solve, not how to make a solution work.
The mistake pro-2A people make is that we assume that if only we could explain how none of their proposed “solutions” would prevent crime they would stop trying to ban guns.
They fucking HATE you. They want you disarmed so that you can’t tell them “No.”
They must be defeated
Sean D Sorrentino @SorrentinoSean
Posted on X, March 16, 2026
This was in response to:
I have nothing to add.
If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
Walter E. Williams
May 1, 2015
American Contempt for Liberty
And you know what that leads to, right? Among other things a much lower productivity and standard of living for everyone without an “in” with the political leadership.
I was recently in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (see below) and will share pictures in a later blog post.
Then you go to the grocery store, and it’s like 90% of the people are just in a pack. They don’t know. They have no connection to food at all. And so it’s very nice. You know, we were raised with it to know that thing that you took is gonna be your dinner meal.
Wyatt Russell
March 12, 2026
Kurt Russell offers ‘no apologies’ for traditional hunting lifestyle
As I have said before, seeing how food is grown and harvested on the farm is an alternate reality. The same applies to the harvesting of domestic animals and wild game. I work in an office overlooking part of a city. There are nearly 200 people in a large office each with huge computer screens each doing their part to prevent, track, and stop bad guys attempting to gain access to our nation’s critical infrastructure. I then visit the farm in Idaho and find the differences incredibly profound.
See also: Riley Green finds reality at home farming and hunting in Alabama over fame | Fox News.
Acetaminophen, also known as paracetamol and sold widely under the brand names Tylenol and Panadol, may also increase risk-taking, according to research from 2020 that measured changes in people’s behavior when under the influence of the medication.
This seems a suspicious. The drug has been in use for decades and this side effect is just now being discovered? Maybe. But it going to need more study to seriously convince people.
To add to the suspicion, the study was done in 2020 and this article is just a rehash of that six year old study.
For heterosexuals, rates of infidelity are four times higher than the rate of open relationships. By contrast, for sexual minorities (with the exception of lesbians), rates of open relationships are higher than the rate of infidelity.
Justin Lehmiller @JustinLehmiller
Posted on X, March 7, 2026
See also Rates of Consensual and Nonconsensual Nonmonogamy Among Heterosexual, Gay, and Bisexual Adults – Sex and Psychology. This article gives us the numbers:
- Overall prevalence of infidelity: about 8% of heterosexual participants, 14% of gay participants, 6% of lesbian participants, 18% of bisexual participants, and 6% of those who described “other” sexualities reported nonconsensual nonmonogamy (defined here as agreeing to be sexually exclusive with a partner, but one or both partners cheated or had an affair).
- Overall prevalence of open relationships: 2% of heterosexual participants, 32% of gay participants, 5% of lesbian participants, 22% of bisexual participants, and 14% of those who reported “other” sexualities.
The way I initially read the post on X was that open relationships result in lower the rates of infidelity. But reading the article I find that even with a higher prevalence open relationship as sort of a “safety valve” the infidelity rates are actually higher.
I’m not sure what to conclude about this other than, “That’s interesting.”
If you don’t own a rifle, your opinion is mostly irrelevant.
Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_
Posted on X, August 14, 2024
There is a surprising amount of truth in this. This is particularly true in the political arena.
I want the American people to understand that if it was not an imminent threat, it was a solidly, aggressively patient threat waiting to pounce at any moment to do great damage to American interests.
Nazee Moinian
March 11, 2026
Iranian-born scholar warns regime was an ‘aggressively patient threat waiting to pounce’ on America
The contribution of Iran to the U.S. war in Iraq in the 2000s was far beyond “patient” and “waiting.” I personally know servicemen killed and severely maimed by Iranian supplied weapons.
I don’t talk about work much for various reasons, but I will say that cyber-attacks from Iran on U.S. critical infrastructure are, for all intents and purposes, continuous. I cannot imagine the attacks are any less frequent on U.S. allies. The attacks have mixed success, but it only takes the right one to cause great harm.
Hence, Moinian is only wrong to the extent which she implies Iran had not yet done or attempted significant damage to U.S. interests.
The U.S. and Israel have decapitated Iran and probably are working on the neck and shoulders of the religious leadership. The apparent thinking is that Iran will soon run out of people volunteering to be leaders or change their evil ways.
That makes sense. At least at first thought it does. Let’s run through a little thought experiment I have had a few times with some close friends a decade or two ago.
Imagine an alternate timeline where SCOTUS came up with different result in the Heller decision and things went downhill from there. Today, in this alternate timeline, U.S. gun owners realize all they have left is the 100 million guns and a few billion rounds of ammo they had hidden before everything else was confiscated. They still have the firepower and now the motivation to remove the tyrants and restore liberty and the true meaning of the U.S. constitution.
In a coordinated attack, with the help of insiders during the state of the Union address, they take out POTUS, all his cabinet, the VP, and the Speaker of the House. They then make it known that everyone who voted for the unconstitutional (in the eyes of the gun owners) laws must be removed from office and replaced with constitutionally friendly politicians. If not, minds will continue to see the light in the most literal sense.
What would the response be? Would the remaining anti-gun politicians go into hiding or give up power? Or would they double (and/or triple) down?
I believe that the smart money, in the best-case scenario, says, “That’s an interesting question.” The more likely result is a police state and mass killings of innocent people.
What are your thoughts on what to expect in this alternate U.S. timeline and what that might tell us about what the Iran response will be?
I have changed the order from the original post to make things clearer:
Israel destroys bridge in Lebanon, threatens Gaza-scale destruction
On Wednesday night, Hezbollah launched 200 rockets at northern Israeli communities.
…
Israel destroyed a bridge in southern Lebanon on Friday and dropped leaflets in Beirut threatening Gaza-scale devastation as it deployed more troops to fight Iran-backed Hezbollah and warned of more attacks on the country’s infrastructure.
…
Israeli aircraft dropped flyers over Beirut threatening to inflict damage on Lebanon similar to the devastation the military wrought on Gaza during its two-year war with Hamas. Much of Gaza has been reduced to rubble and nearly all its population displaced.
“In light of the great success in Gaza, the newspaper of the new reality arrives to Lebanon,” the flyer said.
Another flyer called on Lebanese to strip Hezbollah of its weapons. It featured two QR codes to links on WhatsApp and Facebook, accompanied by a message telling Lebanese to make contact if they want to see “real change” in their country.
I am reminded of the leaflets the U.S. military dropped over Japanese cities (Warning Leaflets – Nuclear Museum). Japan did not heed them even after Hiroshima was vaporized. A similar lack of response will occur in Lebanon. Verbal persuasion is difficult in most people and in essentially impossible in religious extremists.
There is a reason why we have expressions like, “Using a clue bat”, and “hit them with a clue by four.” It takes a different type of “persuasion” to change the minds of these people.
The distribution of the leaflets is the right thing to do. But only to somewhat reduce the guilt of those delivering the bombs the harshness of the international criticism. The rockets will continue to be launched into Israel and, sadly, real change will come from the sky.
Peace is possible: through superior firepower and willingness to use it in the most devastating and efficient (and sparing) way achievable.
We should try that.
Sarah H. Hoyt
March 6, 2026
All We Are Saying Is Give Peas A Chance – According To Hoyt
I never understood people who insist that in order to have peace we needed to disarm. Or the variation where they thought the Mutually Assured Destruction policy was insane. Whenever I tried to engage with people like this, they would either “prove their point” via vigorous assertion (raising their voice and repeating themselves) or go silent. I took the silent treatment as they had not really thought it through and were attempting to engage their brain when I asked them to explain how this worked. I was fine with this. But the vigorous assertion type annoys me. They are all emotion without no data or logic. Those types are a disgrace to humanity and a significant number of animal species.
As much as I dislike violence, I realize that sometimes it is the only way. Particularly with those “vigorous assertion” types. There are non-emotional types you need to worry about too. People can have faulty data or drastically different fundamental principles and arrive at conclusions which involve the elimination of “the rich”, “the poor”, “intellectuals”, “capitalists”, etc. But it seems at some point they, or at least their useful idiots, morph into a version of the “vigorous assertion” class.
If they get themselves worked up into a high enough emotional state, they become physically violent. And with enough numbers they become genocidal.
You can only communicate with these in their native language such that they truly understand. And there are very few more vigorous assertions they understand better than bullets and bombs.
I was invited to do a panel at La Verne University on Bruen.
State Senator Portantino, who pushed a ton of CA gun control bills, was also set to appear. I told them I was happy to do it, but didn’t want my presence to cause their higher profile invitees to drop out and ruin their event. They were confident they wouldn’t, so I agreed.
Portantino dropped out last minute, appearing only for a few minutes on Zoom and taking no questions. Another gun control professor also dropped out. So it was just me, a pro gun prof, and a middle of the road guy.
I torched Portantino as a coward and rebutted every point he asserted.
Antigunners are, generally, cowards.
Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, March 6, 2026
I’m not certain I call it cowardice if you know you will get slaughtered and cause damage to your cause in the process.
There is a lot of evidence to support the claim this behavior is common. They know they cannot win on legal, principle, or practical grounds. They can only win on lies, deception, and emotional manipulation. They are evil.
Mass shooters in the U.S. range in age from 11 to 72. Twenty-year-olds committed more mass shootings and injured more people than any other age group from 1966 to 2024.
Twenty-eight-year-olds committed more mass shootings than any other age group, but the deadliest mass shooting in history was committed by a 64-year-old man. Therefore, there is no apparent direct link between the number of victims and the perpetrator’s age.
Cassandra McBride
March 6, 2026
Average Age of Mass Shooters in the U.S. (Updated 2026)
Note that in the first sentence “Twenty-year-olds” refers to people in their twenties, not just people who are 20 years old.
There is more to the story at the link if you are interested. But the bottom line for my intended use is that prohibiting people between 18 and 20 (inclusive) years old from purchasing a gun is not justified from a practical standpoint of reducing mass shootings even if such a ban could pass constitutional or philosophical barriers.
Beyond the links to sexual satisfaction and positive emotional reactions, research indicates more complicated findings surrounding women’s feelings about orgasm. When women are asked directly about the role orgasm plays in their lives, women often explicitly state that they do not care whether or not they orgasm. However, indirectly, another story emerges. Women who orgasm are much more satisfied with encounters than those who do not. Indeed, women are five times more likely to enjoy a sexual encounter if they orgasmed during the experience. In sum, orgasm is strongly related to sexual satisfaction, even though women indicate it is not important for them.
A great deal of this incoherence may be explained when considering expectations and the importance women attribute to their own orgasms. Regarding orgasms as relevant for one’s sexual well-being was found to be one of the strongest predictors of orgasm frequency. So, in turn, the relationship may be simple: if I experience orgasm then I expect orgasm, and if I expect orgasm, it becomes more relevant for my sexual satisfaction, desire and pleasure. This implies that orgasms are not irrelevant for female sexual well-being, but rather the lower frequency of their occurrence may lead women to alter their expectations, and say that they are fully satisfied even if they orgasm “only” 60% of the time.
Marie-Feline Dienberg, Tanja Oschatz, Jennifer L. Piemonte & Verena Klein
August 17, 2023
Women’s Orgasm and Its Relationship with Sexual Satisfaction and Well-being | Current Sexual Health Reports | Springer Nature Link
Via Peri-orgasmic phenomena: Why some laugh, cry during climaxing (side note from my own related survey: one woman told me her nose itches uncontrollably after she has an orgasm. Another woman said the “Oh god!” cries were uncontrollable because “It feels so good I think I’m going to die.”).
For me, most of the paper was “blah, blah, blah <nothing really new, did you need to write a paper on this?>.” But the information above was new and interesting to me. But it does make sense from a broader psychological perspective.
People rationalize their situation. People without much money will tell themselves and others, “Money can’t buy happiness/love/etc.” Or, the old adage, “I felt sorry for myself when I did not have shoes until I met a man with no feet.” Or the ancient Aesop’s tale of the fox and the grapes.
And closer to my usual topics, people deprived of their inalienable right to keep and bear arms will claim they are safer without guns in the hands of private citizens, discounting or oblivious to the many genocides of unarmed citizens.
If we were the problem, you would know about it.