Monthly Archives: August 2005

TSA considers a grasp on reality

Posted on by

It’s only a clue, but it’s a start:

The federal agency in charge of aviation security is considering major changes in how it screens airline passengers, including proposals that an official said would lift the ban on carrying razorblades and small knives as well as limit patdown searches.

The Transportation Security Administration will meet later this month to discuss the plan, which is designed to reduce checkpoint hassles for the nation’s 2 million passengers. It comes after TSA’s new head, Edmund S. “Kip” Hawley, called for a broad review in hopes of making airline screening more passenger-friendly.

Someone should do some serious research into the alternatives.  It won’t be the TSA, of course, because they might find out they are irrelevant or even counter productive.

Boomershoot prep weekend update

Posted on by

I failed in my primary objective last weekend.  I wanted to get hoods over the locks and hasps to comply with the ATF.  Originally they said the locks and hasps I was using were fine but now I need to put the hoods on them.  Not that big of a deal except I needed a welder out in the middle of the field.  The welder I would have used was in use since it was on the back of a service truck being used in harvest.  Harvest will be over in a couple weeks and I’ll go back and finish up that task. 

What I did get done was fixing some electrical problems and properly storing more of the thousands of pounds of Ammonium Nitrate I bought.  I had stored about 1200 pounds in six garbage cans under a tarp.  I rearranged things inside the metal shed and got that down to about 600 pounds stored under the tarp.  I destroyed several yellowjacket nests inside the shed.  Put out more mice and rat poison.  And finally–I don’t know how many times I have bumped my head on the overhead flourescent light.  I moved it so I can stand upright even while wearing a hat.  More pictures here.

If you believe in compromising on gun control

Posted on by

Gun owners compromised in England and now look at things.  The anti-gun owner bigots in England can’t be happy with a total ban on handguns!  Now they are going after imitation guns:

Steve Walker of GCN said “…our position is clear. If it looks like a gun it should not be allowed.”

Gill Marshall-Andrews, GCN’s chair, said: “No one needs a realistic imitation gun – except perhaps a re-enactment society.”

GCN is Gun Control Network.  Check out their objectives.  This is what you can expect if you attempt to compromise with them.  Who could imagine that two or more people outside of a mental hospital would insist there be a “Ban on the sale, manufacture and import of imitation guns and their possession in a public place.”?  Why does the newpaper consider the rantings of lunatics newsworthy?

IPSC results

Posted on by

The results from the ISPC match I shot last Sunday are in.  I’ll get them posted on the Lewiston Pistol Club website soon.  I came in 4th out of 10 which is in the top half.  I’m pretty pleased considering the lack of practice.  I did best in the clasifier (DVC: Vis = Power) and came in second–four Pepper Poppers and two IPSC targets at 10 (?) yards.  I shot all the steel and got all “A’s” on the paper (eight shots total) in 5.37 seconds for a hit factor of 7.4488.

We already got the hole dug

Posted on by

People and companies in Idaho do a lot of logging and mining.  That means we probably have more than our share of ecoterrorists.  I always questioned the sanity of these people operating in the forests of Idaho.  True, your chances of getting caught out in the woods a hundred miles from the nearest police station and dozens of miles from the nearest house are pretty slim.  But that also means a vigilante has little chance of getting caught.  Particularly since they have heavy earthmoving equipment on-site.  This viewpoint was reinforced recently when I heard a rumor.  Law enforcement had been spending thousands of man hours trying to catch someone.  The ecoterrorist claims he wants to kill some cops–specifically naming a couple of them that had been assigned to his case.  The ecoterrorist uses a rifle in some of his activities against the business interest. Hence the ecoterrorist has the means and intent to kill cops.  The cops are not happy with this.  If they find him and he shows even the slightest amount of aggression they will be justified in using deadly force against him.  But he is living in the woods and it’s quite likely the ecoterrorist will see them coming and be able to get off the first shot or two before being seen–if he is seen at all.  Most body armor won’t stop a rifle bullet.  This far from the nearest hospital a solid hunting rifle hit to an arm or leg will probably result in death.  And it would certainly cause permanent loss of function.  The cops are not at all happy about this.  The local law enforcement officer (LEO) is rumored to have had a conversation with the target of the ecoterrorist that went something like this:

LEO: If that guy disappears and there’s no evidence I have to investigate it wouldn’t bother me any.
TARGET: That’s what we figured.  We already got the hole dug.

Note to ecoterrorists planning to operate in Idaho forests:  Get your sanity checked.

Corporate versus human rights

Posted on by

As most readers will already know the NRA has called for a boycott on ConocoPhillips regarding their filing of Federal lawsuit against a state law prohibiting companies from firing employees who keep guns in their locked cars on company property.  In many circles this creates some mixed feelings.  Shouldn’t property owners (the company/stockholders/whoever) have the right to ditictate the conditions for the use of their property?  Good question.  An Yahoo groups email list I subscribe to (WA-CCW) had this posting from a lawyer which shed some new light on the topic:

From: wa-ccw@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Glenn Slate
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [wa-ccw] Has the NRA gone too far?

So here is my not so professional thought about your questions of
competing rights.  I admit it is a little unusual and unpopular right
now, but I think we all will recognize the correctness of the following
position in time.

The biggest difference here is not property rights vs. RKBA, but human
rights versus corporate rights.  Corporations are formed by the state,
they are given almost all the rights of a person, but they are not a
person.  In a competing rights situation, the corporations rights should
usually loose, as they are granted, rather than guaranteed.

A corporation is formed by an action of the state, in WA that is an act
of the Secretary of State.  WA has a state level preemption, so the
Secretary of State cannot ban CCW.  So how can the secretary of State’s
office create an entity and grant it right that the SoS office does not
itself possess?  That is to say if the Secretary is forbidden by state
law from restricting CCW in WA, how could it create a corporation and
then empower that corporation restrict CCW?

The problem with this issue becomes even more clear when you realize
that corporations need not be owned by individuals.  There is typically
no restriction on a state agency’s owning corporate stock.  So if we
allow corporation to ban CCW, couldn’t the city of Seattle for a
corporation to say  mange all it’s parks and lease the parks to that
corporation.  If they did so, could that corporation ban CCW in parks
under a private property argument?  How about to manage leased  bridges,
roads, parks, sidewalks etc.  Of course 100% of the stock would be owned
by the city, but all action would be taken by the corporation.

So the most basic (and socially disturbing) question is where did the
corporation get it’s personal property rights from?

They were granted by the state.  If the state agency could not restrict
your CCW rights, then it should not be able to grant that authority to a
corporation it formed.
Of course all this is up in the air if that state has no preemption, or
if it has a stature allowing the formation of a corporations with all
the rights of a natural person.  There will be lots of variation state
to state.

This is an entirely untested (and totally unpopular )theory, as our
culture seems to want to build corporations rather than restrict them.
  SO I strongly advice none of you to be a test case using this theory
(or any other is you can help it).

Remember I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer and this is most
definitely not legal advice.

—
Glenn Slate  |  mail to:gslate@emarket-group.com  | 503-445-8030
Corporate Counsel / Vice President of Client Development
eMarket Group, Ltd.  <http://www.emarket-group.com/>
eMerchandise <http://www.emerchandise.com/>

Quote of the day–Arthur T. Hadley

Posted on by

I was the first or second tank in the column that liberated a major concentration camp, Magdeburg…. There was a horror beyond the horror of all the dying I had seen. I learned a lesson that day. There are worse events than battle. When they come to take you off to the camp, fight. And people who tell you that you will be better off in the camps than resisting are not your friends.

Arthur T. Hadley
The Straw Giant, 1971

Reality is knocking at their door

Posted on by

I just ran across this headline as I was scanning the news:  Leading doctor says free NHS is unsustainable.

LONDON (Reuters) – The National Health Service is unsustainable and needs to be reformed, one of the country’s most senior doctors said on Saturday.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Bernie Ribeiro, the new president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said healthcare should be paid for through a social insurance system.

“If we’re going to have a health care system suited to the future, we’ve got to be prepared to invest in it,” he said. “I don’t personally believe that can be done out of pure taxation.”

Ribeiro suggested a means-tested system where the poorest would pay nothing at all and other patients would take out insurance to cover a proportion of their costs.

“We’re not a poor country, the working population is reasonably well paid, we could afford our workers to make an identifiable contribution towards health care — not one hidden in national insurance and taxation.

“We seriously need to look at this again.”

The Labour party vowed during the May election to continue free care for all through the NHS, which it created in 1948.

Britons tend to be very protective and proud of the health service which employs 1.3 million workers and spends over 76 billion pounds a year.

But an independent report in June 2005 said the service faced serious financial problems through poor management and doctors and patients have repeatedly complained of long waiting lists and over crowding on many hospital wards.

Socialism–The Road to Serfdom (which was written in 1944 and intended for the British audience).  And socialized medicine is just one of the steps down that path.  At least a few people are getting a clue after nearly 50 years.  The question is, is it too late to reverse the slide into the abyss?

Boomershoot prep weekend

Posted on by

I’m spending today and tomorrow doing a bunch of work on my explosives magazine and possibly some tests on my explosives mixture.  I need to get things taken care of earlier this year.

Muslim jokes

Posted on by

Neal Boortz (the link www.vicioussob.com works too) has some Muslim jokes on his web site.  They are here and here.  Some are pretty good.  My favorites are:

From the Muslim standup comic Goffaq Yussef:

  • How many Palestinians does it take to change a light bulb. None! They sit in the dark forever and blame the Jews for it!
  • A Palestinian suspect was being grilled by Israeli police. “Honest, I’m not a suicide bomber,” he said. “I didn’t say I wanted to blow myself up so I could sleep with 72 virgins. All I said was I’m dying to get laid!”
  • A Palestinian girl says to her mommy, “After Abdul blows up, can I have his room?”

Bumper stickers:

  • If you don’t like the way I drive, stay out of the World Trade Center
  • Driver carries only $20 worth of C4
  • My kid and YOUR money go to Gitomo Bay.
  • My 12-year-old can blow up your honor student

Quote of the day–Violence Policy Center

Posted on by

Gun shows hold a particular appeal for the pro-gun fringe… While McVeigh and Koresh may be two of the best known gun show customers, they are other lesser known but equally discomforting attendees. According to the January 23, 1995 issue of National Review, convicted serial killer Thomas Dillon began his murderous career by killing more than 500 dogs and cats, then moved on to humans allegedly killing at least five men. In 1989 he announced to a friend that he had quit killing animals and began inviting the friend to attend gun shows with him.

From the July 1996 Violence Policy Center study Gun Shows in America:
Tupperware® Parties for Criminals.
See: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/gunshow.htm
[Bigots spouting off–Joe]

Xenia and milk

Posted on by

I meant to post this story the night (two days ago) it happened but I got distracted and then forgot.  I sometimes give Xenia a bad time about being a klutz, which she isn’t really.  But there have been a couple of incidents with milk and then the time she walked into a support post in the grocery store that might lead one to think otherwise.  She tells the milk stories.  This last time I ended up taking a quick shower and changing all my clothes–from my socks to my shirt.  Everyone else at the table escaped every drop.

Clueless “Gun Guys”

Posted on by

I subscribe to the Gun Guys email list and get rants about how terrible guns are on a regular basis.  Most of the time it’s just pathetic, bigoted, ignorant blather.  However todays rant includes part of a recent CCRKBA news release.   Even when it’s spelled out for them these clowns just don’t get it:

Howdy Partners,

We told you on Tuesday about the police chiefs of Wisconsin standing up with the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort against the proposed concealed weapons bill there.  Great cops like Oregon Police Chief Doug Pettit have been telling America what most of us already know: that allowing concealed weapons on the streets is dangerous for both cops and citizens.

It’s all the more disheartening, then, when out of the woodwork comes a group like the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms attempting to undercut the police chiefs’ message.  In a press release on a conservative site MichNews.com, CCRKBA’s executive director, Joe Waldron, tries to infer that Wisconsin’s police chiefs don’t know what they’re talking about:

“Wisconsin residents,” Waldron said, “certainly deserve to be on equal footing with armed criminals, because police can’t be everywhere. Glibly arguing that only police should have guns ignores the fact that criminals prefer victims who can’t fight back… Gun owners will tell you that a place where only police have guns is a police state. Wisconsin is still part of the United States.”

“Police state” hyperbole aside, Waldron hints that the Wisconsin chiefs are attempting to ban guns from citizens’ hands.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  What police chiefs have been saying all week, throughout Wisconsin, is that they’re against concealed weapons on the streets.  The gun lobby is currently pushing for a bill to “outsource” public safety by taking the concealed weapon permit process away from law enforcement and putting it into the hands of private companies.  They want to allow concealed weapons in hospitals, places that serve alcohol, and even children’s sporting events!  That’s what the police chiefs in Wisconsin are urging lawmakers against.  They, like many citizens, are concerned about the safety of both police and residents, and know that concealed weapons will only make matters worse.

Instead of listening to the experience of these knowledgeable officers, however, Waldron chooses to attack their judgement and suggest that the opposite of what they’re telling us is true.  Thanks, CCRKBA, but no thanks.

The worst that can be said from a scientific analysis of the data is that citizens carrying concealed weapons doesn’t improve citizen safety and most studies show improvement in safety when the potential victims are allowed the tools most effective in defending themselves.  The clueless don’t care about scientific data.  They are only interested in a small subset of opinions–the opinions that match their bigoted viewpoint of the world.

Don Kates on bigotry

Posted on by

First off, does anyone have an email address or website for him?  I can’t seem to find one. 

Second, while searching for an email address I found this speech by him.  It was from this speech I pulled todays quote.  I have often commented about anti-gun owner bigots and have praised others that use that term against the anti-freedom crowd.  Kates, in his speech, spells it out for us better than anyone else I have come across.  A sample:

… the gun control debate is not really about criminology but rather about bigotry and the effort of an influence group to force its morality on everyone by having it adopted as state and federal law. To see this it is necessary only to review some unfamiliar facts: the average gun owner is better educated and has a better job than non-owners; attitude surveys find gun owners neither racist nor sexist; liberals are only somewhat less likely than others to own firearms; liberals who do are no less willing to use them to defend their families; the only violence gun owners endorse is willingness to come to the aid of crime victims. Gun owners do not approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc. Also, good Samaritans who actually come to the aid of crime victims are twice as likely to be gun owners as the general populace.

Though these facts have been uniformly established by numerous sociological studies, they will doubtless surprise you almost as much as they would the anti-gun movement and the media. After all the former (which is actually a gun BAN movement), with the enthusiastic aid of the media, have succeeded in stereotyping gun owners as violence-oriented yahoos — educationally, intellectually and morally retarded.

There is a word for people who inaccurately, unjustly ascribe negative characteristics to a whole group of others they dislike: that word is BIGOT.

You may not realize it but the language we use in our fight for freedom has a huge impact.  As Kevin at The Smallest Minority posted a couple days ago the mindset and world view are dependent upon the language we use.  If we let our opponents define the terms (think “assault weapons”, “sniper rifles”, “gun safety regulations”, etc.) we will lose.  We must define ourselves and our opponents.  Our opponents are bigots.  It’s demonstrably true.  Don’t let them or anyone else forget it.