Both sides can try to get some political pay out of it. We feel these types of situations actually make the point that a law-abiding citizen should have less controls or it would inhibit lawful self defense.
Clark Aposhian
February 14, 2007
Trolley Square slayings heats up gun-control debate
Chairman of the Utah Concealed Weapons Permit Review Board
Regarding the Trolley Square shooting in Utah.
[It was also Mr. Aposhian that I received my training for a Utah concealed carry permit.–Joe]
The Second Amendment isn’t about guns or hunting anymore than the First Amendment is about typewriters, Mr. Mayor. It’s about concepts of liberty residing in the authority of the people since the inception of the nation and written to remain that way. The First Amendment is watchdog of government in various ways and is not absolute, and the Second Amendment backs our sovereignty by force and is absolute, which authority cannot legally be taken away.
Taking weapons is breaking the law because it challenges our sovereignty with abuse of process, itself backed by force. This is not leadership or governance: this is an illegal challenge to sovereign authority.
Candidates who oppose personal carrying of handguns lack the understanding to serve and have only the lust to rule. The first step is, of course, to outlaw the honest. It keeps the issue of violent crime alive while people die at the hands of it. Gun control never reduces crime, but endures as an immortal, evergreen issue.
Listening, 2008 Candidates?
They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters – with force, if necessary. It’s how 22,000 gun laws profoundly affect the non-gun owners in America: it challenges their sovereign authority, too.
Repeal gun laws and stop challenging the sovereign authority of the people: protect it and serve it.
John Longenecker
February 13, 2007
2008: Gun Control Candidates Need Not Apply
I thought that banks were required by federal law to have the Socialist Security numbers of all account holders. It turns out not be true, apparently, for illegals. I’ll choose to think of that as good news. I’ll assume I can now open accounts all over the country, including credit card accounts, without my Socialist Security number or any other documentation of my true identity. Cool.
I don’t care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating.
Boss Tweed
[I keep thinking of this quote as I read about the possible nominees for the next President. Someone who doesn’t like my politics must be doing the nominating for the nominations. It seems there will only be bad, worse, and worst options available.–Joe]
Lots of lessons to be learned here.
I always regarded it as sort of personal quirk without need of a “fixing” but I found it very “deflating”, shall we say, to have one of the kids knock on the door while my wife and I are engaged in certain intimate activities let along for them to actually be in the room. That personal quirk aside, I never understood why some people would regard it as child abuse or endangering of a child’s welfare for them to see such activity. After all, animals engage in that sort of activity in front of their young without apparent harm. And what about very primitive human societies without doors that can be locked? Do those children, or animals, that see those sort of activities suffer some sort of harm? I think we can safely predict the results of those studies before someone spends X million dollars of government grant money on the topic.
However such a study might help out this couple who I believe should be convicted of committing an act of stupidity not neglect:
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A Woonsocket mother and her boyfriend are headed to trial on charges they had intercourse in front of the woman’s 9-year-old daughter as a way to teach the girl about sex.
Rebecca Arnold, of Woonsocket, and her boyfriend, David Prata, have pleaded not guilty to felony child-neglect charges. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for next month.
When questioned by an investigator from the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex “all the time” in front of the child and that “we don’t believe in hiding anything.”
He said the girl would often be on the bed watching as the couple had sex. Though they did not ask her to leave, they also did not force her to remain on the bed, Prata said.
With a title for a book review like Fighting Gun Disease (the actual book is Enter the Babylon System: Unpacking Gun Culture from Samuel Colt to 50 Cent) you know the review and probably the book is going to have some serious problems. I wasn’t disappointed:
There are 65 million handguns in the U.S. It’s estimated up to 1.8 million of them are stolen every year in the States and as many as 25 per cent of all handguns eventually show up in a crime.
The 65 million number might be close. It seems plausible at least. The 1.8 million stolen each year doesn’t. I looked up the U.S. production records on the ATF website and found that after subtracting the exports manufactures entered 1,043,538 handguns into U.S. commerce in 2005. Imports added another 856,259 which adds up to 1,899,797 handguns entering into the U.S. in 2005. This includes those that went to the U.S. military and law enforcement. Some anti-gun bigot apparently figures that annual import and manufacture of handguns just barely covers the number of firearms stolen each year and it gets the number published in book.
As many as 25 per cent of all handguns eventually show up in a crime? Then that would mean that just to keep up with the annual increase in handguns (~1.9 million in 2005) there would have to be at least 474,949 firearm crimes using different handguns.
From the FBI we find there were 139,994 aggravated assaults and 135,444 robberies with firearms in 2005 add that to the 7543 murders committed with handguns in 2005 and we end up with only 282981 crimes committed with handguns. Hence, even if every single crime involved a different gun we come up 191968 short of estimate.
Of course there mght be additional crimes committed with handguns which aren’t listed but the vast majority will be covered in those three categories. And the above numbers make the very conservative assumption that each crime involves a different gun. Clearly someone was just making stuff up. It’s not an “estimate” by anyone qualified to be making estimates on this topic.
This reminds me of an entry in my quote database:
42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Title 18 USC 242 says:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Furthermore the FBI says:
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority.
…
During Fiscal Year 2005, the FBI investigated more than 1,100 color of law cases.
I think that since the FBI states they are the lead agency for investigating color of law abuses we should be reporting abuses to them. The FBI has a web page telling how to go about it (near the bottom of the page):
To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:
• all identifying information for the victim(s);
• as much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and
agency employed;
• date and time of incident;
• location of incident;
• names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
• a complete chronology of events; and
• any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.You may also contact the United States Attorney’s Office in your district or send a written
complaint to:Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.
Reporting Mayors Daley, Bloomberg, and others involved in the conspiracy to deprive others of their rights to keep and bear arms would seem to be a good starting point. There are those involved in the Katrina incident. That’s just the beginning. There are lots of politicians and law enforcement types all over the country that could benefit from some time in prison for violating our 2nd Amendment rights. Reporting Schumer, Feinstein, and others involved in the “assault weapon” ban would merit my approval as well.
Gun control: Being able to hit a moving target at 500 yards with one shot, one kill, henceforth conserving your ammunition for further skirmishes and engagements.
Howard Hutchinson
Basically, IPSC is, and rightly so, about shooting people. Some people need to be shot. Get over it.
Joe Huffman
January 15, 1999 12:52 PM
Unofficial IPSC email Discussion List
One of the many murder mystery shows on TV these days recently did an episode wherein an assassin shot his victim through the heart at a mile and a half with a single shot from a super-scary sniper rifle, complete with portable weather station, laser range finder and computer, etc. (sounds a bit like my setup). It reminds me of Henry (nostrilitis) Waxman’s attempt to scare children over the magical capabilities of the .50 BMG cartridge.
Knowing this claimed feat to be beyond ridiculous, and for fun I decided to test it using Joe’s exterior ballistics program. Using all the most generous figures: Caliber .50 BMG (loaded with the slipperiest small arm bullet, with a Ballistic Coefficient of 1.05) which I gave an impressive standard velocity deviation of only 5 feet per second, and an inherent accuracy of 0.5 minutes of angle (super, ultra special, custom ammo) with a wind estimation error of only 2 MPH over that whole mile and a half, and perfect assessment of temperature, humidity and barometric pressure. It turns out that the probability of a hit (any hit) on a 15 inch circle at that distance (2,640 yards) is from 1% to 8% (depending on which 100-shot simulation you go with– i.e. there were 100-shot strings in which only one bullet hit its target) assuming a perfect shooter with nerves of perfect steel, perfect optics and visual conditions that can resolve a 16-inch (a little over ½ MOA) wide target at 2,640 yards.
Using the more common, high powered, long-range 300
On the TV show, the shooter did another amazing trick by timing his shot (from a mile and a half away) to exactly coincide with some blanks fired in a movie set dual. The time of flight for his (assumed) .50 BMG bullet at 2,640 yards is nearly 5 seconds, so the shooter would have to anticipate his victim’s actions with superb accuracy, five seconds in advance. Furthermore, he took the shot from an urban area, where the intense muzzle report from a necessarily very powerful rifle would have gotten the attention of people in a wide radius. The rifle was bolt action, and the ejected cartridge case was depicted as having melted into the outdoor carpet on the balcony that served as the shooting position– also preposterous, as the case sits in the chamber too long to leave it so hot upon ejection (the relatively cool barrel acts as a tremendous heat sink for the thin brass case). Only autoloaders spit out hot cases because they extract the case within milliseconds of firing. Oh and the target, being a human in the process of acting out a mock duel, was moving, making the probability of a hit even less (my simulations were done on a stationary target).
Now some would say, “Hey, its just a TV show. Its entertainment, Dude, lighten up.” I would agree if it were a science fiction series, or fantasy, but this stuff is put forth as serious, hard-hitting drama. To me its like a serious W.W. II drama in which people fly like superman, battle tanks travel at 200 miles an hour, and animals talk. It ceases being entertainment and becomes an insult.
Usually when some state or local political type ignores the law (18 USC 242 as well as the 2nd Amendment) and attacts people exercising their constitutionally protected rights the Feds just look the other way. The impression I get is that they figure it’s just some uppity gun nut–so who cares? This time it’s a little bit different:
In a stern rebuke to the city’s high-profile crusade against illegal guns, the feds warned the Bloomberg administration that it could face “potential legal liabilities” if it continues to conduct sting operations that fall within the jurisdiction of federal agents.
…
According to a letter sent to City Hall, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and various U.S. attorneys’ offices have determined the city’s findings against the 15 dealers “do not rise to a level that would support a criminal prosecution.”
The letter – sent Tuesday by Michael Battle, director of the executive office for United States Attorneys at the Department of Justice – also scolded City Hall for engaging in sting operations involving persons “without proper law enforcement authority,” saying that could put the city in legal jeopardy. Battle added that City Hall could “unintentionally interrupt or jeopardize” criminal probes.
But of course, just like the classic deep south sherriff that is a member of the KKK, this politician doesn’t get it either:
Asked if the Bloomberg administration plans to stop conducting the sting operations, Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler said, “Not necessarily.”
“The city hasn’t violated any laws,” Skyler said defiantly, adding that the city will continue to pursue its civil lawsuits against the gun dealers.
…there’s no doubt that the buyers broke the Gun Control Act, and that those who set them to it were liable as aiders and abettors, not to mention on a conspiracy theory. I’d assume that Bloomberg and company (1) figured it was worth it for the publicity and (2) figured that the laws don’t apply to the rich and powerful. They may just have been right on both.
David Hardy
February 8, 2007
US Attorneys slap down Bloomberg
Of Arms in the Law
They just keep coming in. I got one last week and another came in yesterday. The one yesterday had an interesting comment.
Please elaborate extensively on any Boomershoot topic. What would you like changed? What was best about Boomershoot 2006? What was the worst about Boomershoot 2006?
A: women in bikinis is a must have.
You realize that women that attend Boomershoot also shoot guns, right? They shoot seven inch square targets at 700 yards. I don’t tell them how they must dress and I suggest no one else does either. The extent of my sympathy for someone so stupid as to push the issue will be to nominate them for a Darwin Award if something were to “go horribly wrong”.
This is what happens after you give up your right to keep and bear arms. You are reduced to begging to have even a small fraction of them restored:
Dear Home Secretary,
…
As I am sure your officials will tell you, there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that by banning legally-licensed cartridge pistols and closing legally-operating shooting clubs, we would all sleep safer in our beds. Yet today there are more hand guns on our streets than 10 years ago.
…
When London won the bid for the 2012 Olympics, the British Olympic Association and the governing bodies of shooting put forward a case to your department for legislative exemptions which would allow our pistol shooters and a large squad of sporting hopefuls to be granted dispensation under Section Five of the Act so that they could retain their sporting pistols at home without ammunition in order to do their daily ‘dry training’. Registered regional shooting clubs would also be designated as a place for weapons to be used.
It looked like a way forward could be agreed. The sports minister, Richard Caborn, assured the BOA that he had written to the Home Office giving his support for exemptions. An Early Day Motion in the Commons attracted significant support from all sides of the house and the public have, I believe, realised that target pistol shooters were victims of rough justice in the 1997 legislation. An e-petition on the No 10 website for the restoration of target pistol shooting under suitable controls is gaining signatures every day.
However, somewhere in your department the paper trail has stopped and the silence is deafening. Time is running out.
…
Target shooters are reliable, trustworthy and an asset to their communities – the kind of people your department want to support. Don’t you feel ashamed that most democracies have more faith in their citizens to participate in one of the oldest Olympic sports than we do?
Over to you Home Secretary – we need a decision urgently.
Yours sincerely, Kate Hoey
Labour MP for Vauxhall
Boomershoot 2007 is sold out with a waiting list of eight teams or I would again offer free entry to peasants from the U.K. They need get a glimpse of freedom even if it is just for a weekend.
[heavy sigh] Another one. I could not make this stuff up if I spent weeks on it:
From: Robbie [@ hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:28 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: MAKIN A BOMB!!! 😀Hey M8,Sorry To Bother You Like This But Im Lookin For A Recipie To Blow A 5″ Hole In A Concrete Wall. I Was Wondering If You Could Help Me Out? I Live In Great Britian (Scotland #1) And Live Next To A Builders Yard So Materials Wont Be A Great Issue. I Want The Bomb To Go Off While Im There But Back A Bit Obviously. Ive Got Around £20 ($40 or so). It Needs To Be Quiet So I Wont Be Scene And I Want It To Be In A Bottle Or Bag Etc.Cheers M8 If You Can Help.
Rambo Emm 2oo7“Where Ya From Niggah? West Side Niggah!,
Where Ya From Niggah? East Side Niggah!,
Where Ya From Niggah? North Side Niggah!,
Where Ya From Niggah? South Side Niggah!”
From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:43 AM
To: Robbie
Subject: RE: MAKIN A BOMB!!! 😀Quiet bombs aren’t something I have any experience with.-joe-
From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:39 PM
To: new.scotland.yard@met.police.uk
Subject: FW: MAKIN A BOMB!!! 😀I received an email from someone asking for help building a bomb in Scotland. It’s probably nothing to worry about but that’s your decision to make not mine.I have attached an Excel spread sheet with information from my log files for http://www.boomershoot.org. It was this website where he got my email address.I’m not sure but I suspect he came in via two different locations on two different dates. The IP address in his email is the same as that shown in lines 8 through 44 off the spread sheet which are today’s visit. But there is something odd about that. He didn’t click on a link on another web page to visit that web page (http://www.boomershoot.org/general/BombHelp.htm). He went directly to it as if he typed it in or clicked on it in an email. Hence it may be that the earlier visit, as shown in lines 2 through 7 of the spread sheet from the same ISP are related. Those lines show someone did a Google search for “making a bomb”, found my web page, and then made it a “Favorite”.I know Microsoft will also be glad to help with the Hotmail account if that would be useful.Below you will also find the header from the email which might be of potential use. Further below you will see his email and my response.Don’t hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further help.Joe Huffman
Moscow, Idaho USACell: 208-301-4254
From: Ann [ @met.police.uk ]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:54 PM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: RE: MAKIN A BOMB!!! 😀Thank you for your e-mail. It has been forwarded to the Anti-Terrorist Branch-Intelligence Unit.E-Mail OfficeNew Scotland Yard
From a letter written by the National Park Service:
“Right to carry” laws do not protect visitors from wildlife. Most weapons carried for protection from wildlife are not adequate for that purpose. Untrained individuals attempting to protect themselves from dangerous animals often exacerbate the situation.
So I guess when a mountain lion is chewing on your head they want you to use just your bare hands or improvise weapons on the spot like sticks and stones. And I presume struggling and screaming won’t exacerbate the situation either. Maybe those National Park bureaucrats are of the type that think just because a proposed solution is “all natural” it’s better.
Tam says, “Making Atlas shrug“.
For people that haven’t read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged the following is probably mostly gibberish but explaining here would be a distraction.
As Tam points out Senator Clinton is one of those rare politicians that:
…has the sheer stones to come right out in front of a national audience and baldly, openly, and without euphemism say “I want to steal your shit.“
If Senator Clinton becomes President Clinton then I can seriously believe it’s time to looking for and/or creating Galt’s Gulch. It might be time for the people that have never before gone on strike to finally do just that. It might be time to forcibly demonstrate to the socialists and communists of the world that theft and redistribute of that booty does not and cannot make “the people” better off. It might be time to demonstrate that you can, after a fashion, force labor but you can’t force someone to think.
The only question I have is; Who is our John Galt?
Do you know why prisoners can escape? Because they have more time.
You have the time, the motivation, and the smarts to devote to this case. The other side is at a disadvantage.
Matthew J. Bean, P.S.
February 7, 2007
Regarding Joe Huffman versus Battelle (PNNL).
[This was after he expressed some surprise at my level of preparation in the case and I said I had been thinking about these things for over a year and a half and have been looking forward to the day when I could execute on them.–Joe]
I have to admit I have a rather small sample compared to theirs but from my research this study is way off the mark:
On average, most women say they would have no problem abandoning sex for over a year if it meant they could get their hands on a new wardrobe. Two percent of the 1,000 women in 10 cities surveyed were ready to abstain from sex for three years in exchange for new duds.
When asked whether giving up sex for a month would be worse than losing a loved piece of clothing, 61 percent said they’d rather give up getting down and dirty. 48 percent, taking part in the survey by consumer products giant Unilever said their favorite article of clothing was more reliable than their man in giving them confidence and making them feel sexy.
“Some people say clothes make the man, but the right clothes can even replace him,” fashion designer, stylist and TV personality Carson Kressley from the reality TV show “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” said in a statement accompanying the poll.