Monthly Archives: August 2009

Interesting goal

Posted on by

This surprised me:

He added that the Orange County couple’s ultimate goal is an initiative to divide California into two states – one of which would recognize the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to marry.

I’ve heard, many times, that most of California, geographically, is pro-gun. If they could just get rid of the big population centers the place would be politically tolerable. It seems both sides (I acknowledge not all gays are anti-gun, but there is a strong correlation) want a divorce.

California having such a huge population has a large influence on great number of things nationwide. Presidential elections might be the most obvious but there are thousands of other things as well. The contents of school books, safety standards, air pollution standards, and even gun laws that first show up in California have a nasty habit of spreading to other states. If there were two states where their used to be only one that influence would diminish.

I wonder what we can do to encourage such a separation.

Gun ‘buy backs’ and destruction

Posted on by

I received an email from Rob B. that articulated some half-congealed thoughts of my own:

I consider it a “sin” to destroy operable items. This goes for the weapons destroyed and the Cash for Klunkers victims.

Certainly there is the occasional firearm that needs to be removed from circulation due to poor and irreparable condition or unsafe design or modifications. Certainly there are vehicles which are much the same.

This isn’t about that.

This is about materials made by the labor of man, which cost some fraction of man’s treasure to obtain being destroyed because they are unpopular.

This is roughly equivalent to burning books.

Destroying something made by the labor of an individual (or group of them) destroys some small portion of life, for that person (or group) spent their time and energy (life) making it.

Destroying anything useful diminishes the overall value pool.

This is not good, particularly when done for light, transitory or fallacious reasons.

Simply put, this is wrong.

Rob

Sebastian has a different opinion:

My only moral problem with the programs is that it entices people to turn in items that have significant historical value, which are then destroyed and lost for history. If anti-gun groups and big city politicians want to raise the market floor on junk guns, I have no real problem. It’s their money, and I’d rather than dump it into worthless, feel good programs like this than actually use it to challenge gun rights.

Sebastian is a little ambiguous about who’s money is involved that he is okay with. If it’s anti-gun groups, then I don’t have much problem with it–other than that articulated by Rob. But if it’s tax payer money then I do have a problem with it. This would be a lot like tax money, paid by blacks, being used for schools that teach blacks are inferior and should not be allowed to hold public office or vote. Or tax money used to buy and destroy private libraries and churches. It is the government taking money from you to enforce a restriction on your specific enumerated rights.

We have long known the anti-gun people won’t win any prizes for their logic skills and destroying guns is just one more example. If there were a limited supply such as moon rocks or members of an endangered species then firearm destruction would have some significance from a reduction of supply standpoint. But guns aren’t like that. The best they can hope for is to raise the price on used guns, but $50 or $100 as a market floor just doesn’t do anything significant other than increase the likelihood that someone will get into the business of stealing guns (a “no questions asked” market for stolen goods reduces the total risk).

So one has to conclude the gun-buy backs are advocated by people that have one or more of the following characteristics:

  • Willing to use tax money to demonize and restrict the exercise of a specific enumerated right
  • Irrational
  • Desirous of increased theft of firearms

Did I miss any?

Stimulus package

Posted on by

I normally probably wouldn’t have posted this. But after completing New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America it’s particularly relevant. The work programs of the 1930s were used as political tools to not only get votes but to punish those that weren’t “good Democrats” (I’m increasingly of the opinion that is an oxymoronic phrase).

In some cases when you called the phone number to get a Federal job the call went to the local Democratic headquarters. To get the job you had to be interviewed by them and demonstrate your party loyalty. In some cases up to 3% of your pay had to be given to the party.

Take your blood pressure meds then read the book.

Via email from Joe D.

When the Feds delivered the stimulus package they probably didn’t think that “package” would be interpreted in this manner.

Quote of the day–Brannon P. Denning and Glenn H. Reynolds

Posted on by

Political scientists and law professors alike have written extensively on signaling and agenda-setting by the Supreme Court. Despite being dicta—the issues mentioned were not before the Court and were not necessary to resolve those that were before it—the Heller safe harbor seems to us to have been a clear signal, clearer perhaps than any sent in Lopez, that lower courts should not declare open season on any and all federal gun laws. It seems to us that the lower courts have certainly heeded this signal.

Brannon P. Denning
Glenn H. Reynolds
August 1, 2009
Heller, High Water(mark)? Lower Courts and the New Right to Keep and Bear Arms pages 15-16.
[H/T to Say Uncle.

That’s the bad news, which I already knew even from my limited legal viewpoint. There is good news in part III of the paper. Much of it was new to me.–Joe]

Sweaty sex

Posted on by

It’s not exactly a research paper with lots of data but it is a plausible hypothesis:

One of the most intimate forms of loving, it’s far from unsexy. When it comes to excreting buckets of moisture from your skin, wetter can be better. While many would wrinkle their noses at the notion of an antiperspirant meltdown, the action it can inspire captures sexy in its most animalistic form.

…

So who would’ve thought sweaty sex could be sexy and good for you? There are a number of benefits to working up a sweat; provided you both have a clean bill of health and you stay hydrated.

Sweaty sex:

— Means more calories and fat are being burned during a vigorous sex session;
— Allows for more slithery sex as your bodies slide all over one another;
— Makes for a body suctioning effect that enhances feelings of “we’re one” during sex;
— Offers new sensations that appease our need for variety, like salty kisses;
— Puts a twist in your routine as it taps into your inner instinct of raw, uninhibited sex;
— Can have the two of you resembling the wet sleekness of “Sports Illustrated” swimsuit models, with slicked back hair or shiny skin;
— Releases more of our natural scents, particularly those around the groin, which can be an aphrodisiac, even if on a subconscious level.

I’ll put it on Dr. Joe’s list of things that need further first hand (so to speak) research.

I’d tell you which blogger this reminds me of because she very recently mentioned both sex and a sweaty experience on her blog–but then I would have to kill myself.

Quote of the day–Cameron Hopkins

Posted on by

Will more .38 Supers show up next year? Is the .45ACP now obsolete? In a nut shell, no. The .45 will continue to dominate. The cost of shooting a .38 Super loaded to make major caliber are astronomical. The brass is only good for one loading due to the pressures that swell the web. The beating the gun takes drastically reduces gun life compared to that of a .45.

Cameron Hopkins
American Handgunner
May/June 1985, p. 54
[FYI, nearly 25 years after writing the above Hopkins is still writing.

Just another reminder for myself.

It’s risky to make predictions. I do it anyway and I’m reckless enough to sometimes put the predictions in writing. You would think that seeing the colossal failures of others that do this would be warning enough–but apparently it is not.–Joe]

New shooter report

Posted on by

A friend of Barb’s and mine for over twenty years contacted me recently and asked to take me up on my offer to teach her to shoot. We went to Wades this afternoon. I had her shooting my Ruger Mark II. It has a six inch bull barrel and her arms got tired quickly. I went back out to the front desk and utilized my “free rental” (comes with being a member) for a Browning Buck Mark. It was much lighter and she did better.

At about 10 feet nearly all of her shots were within the black. After about 20 rounds she told me, “Maybe I should buy a gun.” I said we could talk about it after we got outside. I did a little bit of shooting with the Buck Mark and my Gun Blog 45 then we left.

In the parking lot I asked her about why she wanted a gun. The answer was the economy is probably going to get worse and Obama may make it difficult to get a gun. She wanted a gun to be able to protect herself and her youngest daughter who lives with her. She asked how much a gun costs and if a .22 would be okay for her needs. I suggested she should practice some more and try to get the strength to be able to shoot something a little bigger. But, the most important selection criteria was that she feel comfortable shooting it. If that means a .22 then that would be best for her.

I emailed her a link to this class which would let her shoot a number of guns as well as cover other important issues of gun ownership such as self-defense legal issues. She responded with:

I will sign up the class with my brother.

…

Thank you so much for teaching me. You are a great teacher. …you can post the comment to the blog too. 🙂

We are winning the gun rights issue one new shooter at a time.

Quote of the day–Bruce Schneier

Posted on by

Surveillance infrastructure can be exported, which also aids totalitarianism around the world. Western companies like Siemens, Nokia, and Secure Computing built Iran’s surveillance infrastructure. U.S. companies helped build China’s electronic police state. Twitter’s anonymity saved the lives of Iranian dissidents — anonymity that many governments want to eliminate.

Every year brings more Internet censorship and control — not just in countries like China and Iran, but in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and other free countries.

The control movement is egged on by both law enforcement, trying to catch terrorists, child pornographers and other criminals, and by media companies, trying to stop file sharers.

It’s bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state. No matter what the eavesdroppers and censors say, these systems put us all at greater risk. Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in.

Bruce Schneier
August 3, 2009
Building in Surveillance
[Schneier doesn’t mention this but the concept of “bad civic hygiene” has wider application than just surveillance technology. It also applies to the TSA, gun control, and even government provided health care (do you want health care decisions for gays made by people like Fred Phelps–or vice versa?). It’s another way of expressing concern about failures of my Jews In The Attic Test.

Some people have a lot of concern about Microsoft contributing to this sort of thing. I have been, and am, involved in projects that have the potential to cause concern. I have been very pleased to see that not only the corporate policy is appropriate to protect innocents but also the attitude of the people I work with is on par with my standards in this regard.–Joe]

This could be fun

Posted on by

Whenever I get a chance to ask anti-gun people questions in public I do my best to take advantage of it.

People in the Indianapolis area have their chance today:

INDIANAPOLIS – Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and a former Fort Wayne mayor, plans to speak in Indianapolis on Saturday.

Helmke is scheduled to speak on what he calls weak guns laws in Indiana and the nation at the Lecture Hall building on the campus of Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis beginning at 6 p.m. The event is being sponsored by a group called Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence.

Helmke says a recent Brady Center analysis of crime data shows that Indiana ranks fifth in the nation in the number of crime guns exported to other states. He says Indiana also ranks fourth in its per-capita rate of total crime gun sales.

If you go then dress appropriately, be polite, and leave your tin-foil hat at home.

We have a lot more work to do

Posted on by

I like to imagine that once we reach some critical threshold in the courts the victories will be almost automatic and our opponents will scatter like rabbits at the sight of a large predator. It may be true that we reach that point but we aren’t there yet:

The latest example is a decision late Thursday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which said that a criminal defendant may not be allowed to present a Second Amendment defense to a federal jury in Utah. It came after the appeals court granted an extraordinary emergency appeal, called a writ of mandamus, from the Justice Department after the district judge agreed to allow those jury instructions.

The defendant, Rick Engstrum, has an earlier misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and has been charged with possessing a firearm in violation of a federal law that applies to anyone “who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” He has pleaded not guilty.

(The prosecution arose when Engstrum broke up with his girlfriend, who subsequently told police that he had a gun in his bedroom. Engstrum voluntarily showed police the gun, which he inherited from his father; there’s no evidence he has ever used the firearm, let alone threatened anyone with it.)

Engstrum, reasonably, wanted to argue to the jury that the Second Amendment renders that law invalid, at least when applied to people who show no risk of future violence. (Remember, this is a Utah jury, which raises the odds that jurors are familiar with the right to keep and bear arms, and may even have heard of the concept of jury nullification.)

The Justice Department rejected this idea out of hand. By a 2-1 margin, a Tenth Circuit panel agreed, concluded that the Second Amendment didn’t apply, and prohibited those jury instructions. “If the case proceeds to trial, the district court is directed not to instruct the jury on this Second Amendment defense, including not giving the proposed jury instruction,” they wrote.

The defense isn’t allowed to even bring up the Second Amendment.

We need incorporation and then we need to attack a whole barge load of infringements one tiny step at a time. The Heller decision was just the tiniest of steps in the right direction.

There is a lot of work ahead of us.

Quote of the day–Dave Workman

Posted on by

The VPC and Freedom States crowd would have us all believe that every armed citizen is just like George Sodini, and that he is like all of us; a killer waiting to strike.

While they are loathe to admit it, there is really no difference between gun bigots and racial or religious bigots. One form of class hatred is no less divisive than another.

Dave Workman
August 7, 2009
New anti-gun strategy: Demonize CCW holders
[The bigot meme is getting more visible. Although I can’t take any credit for bringing Workman up to speed on it. Alan Gottlieb and he were the ones who first infected me.–Joe]

Everything you need to know about carrying guns in public

Posted on by

If I were to tell you that everything you needed to know about guns could be learned from T.V. shows and the movies you would, and rightly so, tell me I was full of crap. If I went even further and said you could learn what you needed to know about carrying guns in public from watching an ad for a video game you would, and rightly so, consider calling the guys from the funny farm.

It’s very clear that the Joyce Foundation needs to put more effort into making sure their guy is taking his meds. Because he just said:

This is without a doubt the embodiment of the gun lobby’s dangerous and irresponsible myth: that an “armed society is a polite society.”

But this old XBOX advertisement that was banned several years ago shows the complete opposite. Depending on your worldview and experience, viewers will undoubtedly have many different responses to this video. But we think it makes a dramatic and cogent argument for keeping all guns — concealed or openly carried — out of our public spaces.

Can anyone demonstrate where even a hint of this type of thing has ever happened? We have millions of people legally carrying guns in public each day and this type of thing has never happened. Not even close–except in his hallucinations. And he thinks it makes a “cogent argument”?

Wow. Did he get his logic training from a comic book?

State nullification of laws

Posted on by

Interesting post here about the Firearms Freedom Acts (such as in Montana and Tennessee) and concludes:

While many advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

I’m not sure comparison can be made to the Real ID Act. The Real ID Act was impractical to implement (as well as being useless), had to be done by the states, and the states among other things said we aren’t doing it unless you give us a LOT more money. Defying Federal firearms laws requires a win in the courts or use of force against Federal law enforcement. Neither of which I see as very likely.

I agree with the goal, I’m just not convinced it will work unless there were a large number of states that went along with it. In which case a Constitutional Amendment would be feasible.

I suppose you could think of it as a form of communication to the Feds saying, “Back off” or as a symbolic middle finger. Which has it’s value. But mostly I just see it as having entertainment value.

Five round limit for shotguns?

Posted on by

This guy apparently wanted free room and board at tax payer expense so yesterday he, indirectly, requested the local police transport him to his new accommodations:

According to information from the Birmingham Police Department, the Birmingham Police 911 Communications Center received a call about 7:00am CT Wednesday, August 12, 2009, from a man stating his intent to kill a Birmingham Police Officer.

The man called the officer by name and further stated that if he could not find that officer, he would kill every Birmingham Police Officer until he found that particular officer.
Detectives gathered information received by the communications center and later identified the caller as the suspect Marlon Simmons.

After obtaining a warrant for the subject, the Birmingham Police Crime Reduction Team (CRT) located the subject at his home at 7232 2nd Avenue North.

The subject was taken into custody without incident, but was found to have a rifle and handgun in his possession.

Nothing particularly blog-worthy there but what is interesting to me is the following:

While executing the search warrant investigators recovered an SKS type rifle, AR-15 rifle, 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun, hobby cord (fuse), body armor, and assorted ammunition.

According to ATF Agents the shotgun was illegal due to its magazine capacity that is between 10 to 20 shotgun shells.

Huh? There is a Federal law on shotgun magazine capacity? Sure, if it is a “Street Sweeper” or some other specific shotgun with a scary name or looks I know the U.S. Attorney General declared them “destructive device” and got them banned. But the above article sounds a little more generic than that. So doing a little more research I came up with this, an ATF letter stating (emphasis added):

A shotgun with a telescoping stock or a magazine greater than 5 rounds is prohibited from importation into the United States under the provisions of section 925(d)(3) of Title 18, United states code (U.S.C.). Assembly of such a shotgun from imported parts is prohibited under 18, U.S.C. Section 922(r). The implementing regulations in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 478, Section 478.39 (formerly Part 178, Section 178.39) prohibit assembly of such a shotgun that contains more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of the regulation. Please see the enclosed brochure for further information. Assembly of such a shotgun using 10 or less of the listed import parts is not prohibited. The shotgun is also subject to whatever State laws and local ordinances may apply.

I’ve looked up all the Title 18 and 27, section and subsection mumbo-jumbo and was unable to find any references to a five, or any other number, round limit. Did I just miss it? Or did the AG make a declaration that anything over five rounds was “not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes”?

I’ve sent a couple emails out to lawyers to see if I can get this clarified.

Update: My lawyer friend Mike came back with the answer:

This has to do with the import ban on “assault weapons” first put in by (former) NRA member George H.W. Bush in 1989. Under the GCA, the Secretary (now the AG) can bar importation of firearms that are not “particularly suitable for sporting purposes”. The import ban made a list of “assault weapons” unimportable per se. The 10 parts rule is contained in the reg cited. I remember that it was popular for a while to buy an American made Fal receiver and assemble it with 9 foreign parts.

The original AWB in 1994 had the following definition:

Section 921. Definitions
      (a) As used in this chapter –
                    (30) The term “semiautomatic assault weapon” means –
       
                (D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of –
          (i) a folding or telescoping stock;
          (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
        action of the weapon;
          (iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
          (iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

After the AWB ban expired in 2004 the ATF kept the definition in their policies to determine what is “particularly suitable for sporting purposes”:

Nonsporting Firearms – such as handguns which do not meet the sporting purpose criteria on ATF Form 4590, any rifle or shotgun with a folding stock or folding bayonet, and shotguns having a fixed magazine with a capacity of more than 5 cartridges and certain military style semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.

I think we have another opportunity for our congress critters to do some reform on our gun laws in the form of an amendment to some “must pass” legislation. In light of the Heller decision the “sporting purposes” definition needs to go. The Second Amendment isn’t about “sporting purposes”.

STI service

Posted on by

My STI Eagle 5.1 is in need of repairs. There was the thumb safety which I still hadn’t fixed even though I had the new safety in hand. It requires some fitting and I just hadn’t taken the time to go to the farm where all the good tools are.

I also had purchased a RecoilMaster nearly two years ago and found it didn’t fit right. My gun is old enough that some milling needed to be done before it could be installed. Newer STIs come from the factory in a configuration where you can just drop the RecoilMaster in. I had never followed through to get the work done.

But my biggest concern was that the hammer, on two occasions in about 300 rounds, followed the slide. Requiring the hammer to be manual cocked before it would fire. I’m a little surprised it didn’t “double” on me. After the first time I inspected and cleaned the gun. I couldn’t find anything wrong and I tried to duplicate the problem manually, without ammo, and could not. Okay, maybe the auto-disconnecter was dirty enough that something didn’t work right. The gun is clean now so maybe the problem has gone away. Shortly after saying that the problem happened again.

The gunsmith that built the gun for me is no longer in business so I asked the guy behind the counter at Wades if their gunsmith would have a reasonable turn around time. It turns out they don’t really have a “gunsmith” on staff. They have an “armorer”. The difference being the armorer doesn’t do work that involves milling or other major metal moving. So I went to the website of a gunsmith I know in Idaho. Shawn Carlock is an USPSA shooter and I was pretty sure he did pistol work. I couldn’t find reference to it on his website. There was lots of info about rifle work but nothing about pistols. I called him up and he told me they stopped working on pistols and shotguns about three years ago. Bummer.

I asked around for some recommendations and called up a couple guys.

As I was explaining the work I wanted done to the first guy he asked, “What type of gun is it again?” “It’s an STI”, I told him. “Oh, a Stye”, he said. He pronounced as a word like the eyelid infection. After a few seconds he interrupted me to ask, “Is that like a Colt?” “Uhhh… yeah. Except Colts are called 1911’s and this is called a 2011 and has a grip wide enough to take double stack magazines.” At this point I was pretty sure I wanted to get someone else but I asked him what his turn around time would be. He said he could get started on it right away and could have it back to me in a couple days.

I talked to the second guy and he was familiar with STIs in general although not the Eagle 5.1. I asked him for his turnaround time and he said he was currently quoting sometime in November. Ouch.

I called up STI thinking that it would probably be expensive getting the work done at the factory but maybe they could recommend a gunsmith in my area of operation. I talked to Bobby in “Warranty” who said turn around time was usually five to seven business days but currently he was essentially all caught up and they had him working in production part of the time. How much is this going to cost me? This gun is over 10 years old and can’t possibly be considered still in warranty. It turns out it will (most likely) just cost me the shipping cost of the gun to Texas. Wow!

The shipping isn’t cheap. I’m not sure who made the rule but handguns require overnight shipping and with the additional insurance the total was $77.55. The gun arrived at the STI factory yesterday. I’m hoping to have it back by next weekend.

I shoot a STI gun in competition, I carry a STI gun and you should too.

Quote of the day–Roberta X.

Posted on by

I’ll bet you thought you lived in the United States of the Framer’s dreams, didn’t you? …As long as you bear in mind that “nightmares” is a subset of “dreams,” you’re right, too.

There’s not a current or former Congresscritter, except maybe Ron Paul, who ought not be brought up on charges of treason and/or offenses against persons, be given a perfectly fair trial and be imprisoned for life at the very least. The Executive branch is equally culpable. Not gonna happen but hey, a gal can still dream, right? They haven’t made that a Thoughtcrime yet, have they? Have they?

Roberta X.
August 12, 2009
James Madison Calling
[Read the Madison quote in her post for context.

I don’t know if Roberta independently arrived at the same conclusion but I’ve suggested the treason idea before too. Great minds think alike, we share the same delusion, or something.–Joe]

James has a girlfriend

Posted on by

Son James and daughter Kim invited Barb and me to go out to dinner tonight before Kim headed back to Idaho tomorrow morning. They said it was a late birthday dinner for Kim with James since he wasn’t in Idaho when everyone else celebrated Kim’s birthday last month.

It turns out there was another beautiful woman at the table with James when we arrived. And James and this young woman were making a lot of physical contact at the table. We were introduced to Kelsey–James’ girlfriend. It turns out Kim, Xenia, and even Lisa had known about her for some time now. That explains why Kim and Xenia were putting up so much resistance to my plan to introduce James to the new team member at work I’m mentoring. Barb had plans to introduce him to the woman Kim calls “The Boomershoot Girl” who I would have found acceptable as well. But James found someone without his parents help. It is sometimes a surprise to parents that there comes a time when you don’t have wipe their nose, hold their hand with crossing the street, and checking out who they socialize with.

Kelsey appears to be very bright and socially adept. James needs someone super smart in order to hold his interest and respect.

Barb and I are very pleased with his choice.

Speaking of stupid

Posted on by

There has to be more to this query than is in the search terms. I can’t believe someone is so stupid to ask a question like, “Does the actual bullet go in you”?

Domain Name   (Unknown) 
IP Address   75.159.210.# (Telus Communications)
ISP   Telus Communications
Location  
Continent  :  Unknown
Country  :  Unknown
Lat/Long  :  unknown
Language   English (Canada)
en-ca
Operating System   Microsoft WinNT
Browser   Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  

Resolution  :  1440 x 900
Color Depth  :  32 bits

Time of Visit   Aug 12 2009 3:01:08 pm
Last Page View   Aug 12 2009 3:01:08 pm
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.ca…et go in you&spell=1
Search Engine google.ca
Search Words does the actual bullet go in you
Visit Entry Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/01/02/where-does-the-bullet-go/
Visit Exit Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/01/02/where-does-the-bullet-go/
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-7:00
Visitor’s Time   Aug 12 2009 4:01:08 pm
Visit Number   564,176

 

I keep thinking of ways at demonstrating the answer in ways that would prove Darwin correct but unfortunately involve illegal acts.

Don’t be stupid

Posted on by

Playing with explosives can be a lot of fun. But don’t be stupid.

I don’t know for certain but that what this appears to be:

Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents continue to investigate an explosion in Harrison County on the morning of Aug. 1.

Bryan Byrne, a sergeant with the Harrison County Sheriff’s Department, said multiple calls came in to Harrison County Dispatch reporting an explosion that shook houses and rattled windows in the area.

An ATF agent sent to the scene collected evidence from a blast area near Baker Hollow Road. The area where the explosion took place measured about 50 feet in diameter, with trees in the vicinity charred as high as 15 feet.

Kathy Goldman, wife of Harrison County Commissioner James Goldman, told her husband she thought a liquid propane tank had exploded.

The Goldmans live about a quarter of a mile from the site of the blast.

“I wasn’t home, but my wife was. It scared her to death,” James Goldman said. “It was a pretty strong explosion.”

He said an ATF agent from Louisville took a sample of the ground and sent it to Washington to be tested. From what he could tell, Goldman said it appeared to be a homemade bomb made in a plastic five-gallon bucket.

If you are going to be detonating things that make house rattle then get the permission of the land owner and you might want to call the cops yourself, before someone else does. Even if no law was broken or property damaged it wastes a lot of time and money of the cops. If they find out it was you they are going to make your life miserable just because they would rather be eating donuts, writing tickets to increase government revenue, or inspecting the local strip club for touching violations.

When people do stupid stuff some nanny statists will use it as an excuse to attempt preventing people from doing something stupid. And that makes me rather grumpy. You won’t like me if I get too grumpy.