Monthly Archives: August 2011

Quote of the day—Henry Mencken

Posted on by

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

Henry Mencken
[I’m unable to find the date or the context but the ‘net seems unanimous in attributing it to Mencken.

Mencken makes a very important point whether it is a First, Second, Fourth, Fifth Amendment or natural rights issue. The oppressors make it difficult because they get to choose the “poster children” who will have standing to challenge the oppressive law. This is the main reason I am far more tolerant of the ACLU than many of those that I keep company with.—Joe]

Key-holing

Posted on by

I have known for a long time that often something strange happens out between 30 and 40 feet when shooting my STI Eagle 5.1 (chambered in .40 S&W). The groups get much larger. At about 20 feet I can almost keep it on ragged hole even when shooting unsupported. But at 40 feet it’s about 6” to 8” groups. At 75 feet they will just barely stay on an USPA target.

I went to the range today and finally figured it out. Below are three different bullet holes from a target at 75’ feet.

WP_000151(2)Web_2011

WP_000154(2)Web_2011

Some of the bullets are key-holing the target. This means the bullets are not stable in flight.

The same thing could be seen at 40’ but less frequently. On the 40’ target, which used a different type of paper you could actually see an imprint of the side of the bullet.

This was cheap “gun show ammo” in 180 grain FMJ but I’m pretty sure it happens with at least some of my hand loads too.

I then tried some Winchester Ranger in 135 grain HP. It was a 16 shot 2” group at 40’. I tried Winchester Ranger in 180 grain HP with the same result; a 2” group at 40’.

I have some 180 grain Montana Gold HPs that I should load up and see if they give me the better results. Fellow shooter Don W. told me a year or more ago that he did experiments with various bullets with his STI chambered in .40 S&W and the Montana Gold 180 grain HP gave him much better accuracy than the FMJs.

I think I will have a chance to do the tests next weekend.

Same planet but different worlds

Posted on by

As everyone knows by know S&P downgraded the U.S. debt rating after the debt ceiling was raised.

I then heard some pundits on the radio saying this was the fault of the Tea Party and Republicans. If they had raised the debt ceiling earlier instead of engaging in brinkmanship it would have happened. The increased interest rates the Federal government will now have to pay will cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of dollars each year and taxpayers can “thank” the Tea Party for that.

The major news media gleefully repeats this line:

Former White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday pinned responsibility for the recent U.S. economic downgrade on the Tea Party movement, arguing that the group’s political “brinksmanship” during debt ceiling negotiations “brought us to the brink of a default” — and that, subsequently, “this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade.”

WHAT?!!! Where are their layers of editorial oversight?

Did anyone bother to actually read what S&P said was their reason for the downgrade? It was right there in their press release (emphasis added):

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see “Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government’s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.

The rating was lowered because progress containing the growth in public spending is less likely that previous assumed. Who was it was trying to contain growth in public spending? Unless the media and the liberal politicians are living in a different world than I am that was the Tea Party. The Tea Party was not sufficiently effective in reducing spending so S&P downgraded the debt rating.

Thomas Sowell has it right. There is no point talking to them. These people are suffering from Peterson Syndrome. They do not have the mental tools to determine truth from falsity and with the pedal to the metal they are driving the U.S. into a financial abyss.

Invest in food, gold, silver, and copper jacketed lead.

Update: The Washington Times, although somewhat more obliquely, says the same thing.

Update2: WizardPc has a humorous take on it.

Quote of the day—Dennis Henigan

Posted on by

It’s a shameful law. The gun lobby is determined to force guns into every corner of our society. That does not make us safer.

Dennis Henigan
Interim president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
August 6, 2011
South Florida cities, counties forced to scrap gun laws — NRA-backed state law forbids local regulation of firearms
[The law is not shameful. It’s shameful that Henigan’s organization even exists.

Henigan has it exactly backward. The “gun lobby” is slowly reducing the force that was determined to remove guns from every corner of our society. The only thing the “gun lobby” is forcing is for governments to stop using force against people who exercise constitutionally protected rights. It’s no different than repealing laws prohibited blacks from voting and it’s time for Henigan to face the music and shut down his organization. We need to move past this shameful chapter in our history and closing down the Brady Campaign would be a major step in the right direction.—Joe]

Too bad

Posted on by

Information Week says Windows Phone is likely headed for extinction:

Microsoft’s share of the smartphone market is plummeting at an alarming rate–so much so that the company’s last ditch effort to make an impact in mobility, Windows Phone 7, may be irrelevant by the time it manages to ship the much-anticipated Mango update and realize its partnership with Nokia later this year.

…

Mango’s debut should also coincide with the arrival of the first Nokia phones running Windows Phone 7, though Microsoft has yet to provide precise arrival dates for Mango or Nokia phones. Under a partnership announced last year, the Finnish phone maker is transitioning its entire smartphone line to Microsoft’s mobile OS.

Whether Windows Phone 7 is a legitimate player in the market by the time that happens remains to be seen. The current numbers suggest otherwise.

I was very proud of both my contribution and of the final product. I can’t speak for the iPhone but I have played with the Android enough to be convinced the Windows Phone has a better user interface. Barb has always said she didn’t want a fancy phone. She just wanted something really simple. I knew she wasn’t going to be very pleased when I got her one for Christmas. I was pretty sure she would eventually be happy with it but I had to get her something else to go with it or else I would be in trouble so I got her a Jeep. Now she loves the phone and she came up to speed on it really fast.

I now sometimes get a dozen or more text messages a day from her. With her previous phones the kids and I could sometimes get her to read text messages but sending them was exceedingly rare and usually accompanied with a bad mood. Now she even Tweets from her Windows Phone 7.

As I was leaving Microsoft in the middle of May I had some people inside and outside of Windows Phone who were in much better “positions to know” than I was tell me, “You are doing the right thing.” A lot of this was based upon the market acceptance of Windows Phone 7 as well as the crappy manager I had.

Microsoft might still pull it out but there are a lot of outside influences that Microsoft just doesn’t have that much control over like the number of external developers who support Windows Phone. And the carriers who might wonder why they are putting effort into supporting a smart phone with such a small percentage of the market.

It’s too bad. I think it’s a great phone and I’m look forward to the Mango update.

We’re winning in Illinois

Posted on by

There are now law enforcement openly supporting concealed carry in Illinois:

The Illinois Legislature may still be divided on allowing residents to carry concealed weapons, but Fox Valley police chiefs and sheriffs are much less split.

Of the dozen area law enforcement leaders contacted by The Courier-News, none said they opposed concealed carry.

…

The Illinois Sheriffs’ Association long has been in favor of concealed carry. Last year, the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police went from “against” concealed carry to “neutral” — a significant change after years of opposition.

It will be a race between SAF/Gura and the Illinois legislature to see who brings home the prize. One thing is certain, the anti-gun people will soon be contemplating the whiskey and sleeping pills or maybe Tequila. Others will probably want to maintain a suicide watch but I think it will be best if we just keep advancing as fast as we can.

In a few months we can be advocating for the abolishment of NFA weapons as a cost saving measure. By then the ATF will be hurting so bad that they will agree to almost anything as long as they aren’t completely abolished.

Quote of the day—Dave Workman

Posted on by

Fascitelli would have the world – or at least the Pacific Northwest corner – believe that just one more gun law, and a lot fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, would be a panacea to the kinds of irrational violence witnessed recently at the Kent car show and a casino near Auburn.

He would gladly sacrifice our civil right to advance his political agenda. That may be okay in New York, but he’s on the wrong side of the Mississippi River to be pushing involuntary public disarmament.

Dave Workman
August 5, 2011
Question to CeaseFire president: Who is the real extremist?
[The Washington CeaseFire board president claimed the Second Amendment Foundation was an extremist organization. This is particularly amusing, as Workman points out, because SAF was on the winning side of  the Heller and McDonald decisions while the position advocated by Fascitelli was struck down. When the Supreme court disagrees with you might want to revaluate who you are calling an extremist.

Does anyone else keep seeing “Fascist” when they glance at the name “Fascitelli”? As a name for anti-gun advocate that has to rank right up there with Professor Bogus.—Joe]

Privacy issues

Posted on by

Numerous times I’ve posted half-baked concerns about our increasing loss of privacy and the dangers and even extreme dangers.

Some people have brought up good points and/or asked good questions and I will respond to those people then share further thoughts I’ve had on the topic.

Acksiom asks (after I said having a twin could be useful to raise reasonable doubt about who did what):

Joe, what kind of situations do you have in mind where that would be appropriate?  I can’t imagine any where I would want to raise reasonable doubt by blaming another innocent person, so I’m curious.

What if your employer is extremely conservative/liberal and a picture shows up of you at a gay-bar or sex shop/gun range or Tea Party rally? There are lots and lots of things of this nature. In the mild case they are things like pictures of a drunk, topless, woman at spring break 10 years ago who now wants to run for public office or be a Sunday School teacher. In the worst case we are talking matters of life and death, Jews in the Attic, type of things.

Alan states:

Privacy is a recent illusion caused by growing population and increased mobility.  Technology is allowing the return to the historical lack of privacy that has been the normal human condition for thousands of years.

You can’t fight it any more than the RIAA or MPAA can fight file sharing.  Better to start thinking how we’re going to adapt to everyone knowing everything.

In regards to his first point, it’s more like millions of years but that doesn’t distract from the validity of his observation. What is different now is that we don’t have a small homogenous tribe. We have an exceedingly diverse population with a powerful government.

In regards to his second point I’m not entirely convinced it is possible create an environment where “everyone knows everything”. And as long as an imbalance of knowledge exists there are “issues”. I am convinced that he is right about the analogy with the RIAA and MPAA. The “privacy gene” is not only “out of the bottle” the bottle has evaporated.

Sebastian posted (three+ years ago):

But in an information based society government will be able to know a lot about its citizens.  Our government probably knows more about its citizens than any other government in history.  There won’t be much means to avoid that.  Conversely though, information technology also makes it possible to know more about our government than any other people in history.  I would encourage and recommend anyone who’s interested in this topic to read David Brin’s The Transparent Society.

Tam stated (several months ago):

I think David Brin had it mostly right in The Transparent Society: This genie is well and truly out of the bottle, and the only non-Orwellian outcome will be if everybody has access to it.

Sebastian echoes (last night),

One of the sources I look to in this issue is David Brin’s “The Transparent Society”. I don’t think Brin is right about everything, but the fundamental idea that the loss of privacy isn’t such a big deal provided it’s applied equally in society, I think is a reasonable concept.

I responded (three+ years ago) by saying the politicians and government employees should go first and we will see how well that works out. The only thing I think I need to add to that post is that they should add real time location information to the collection of public servant information available to the general public.

We are entering uncharted territory. Never before has their been societies this diverse able to know this much about everyone else. Sure, if you go back far enough (it would not be necessary but just to make the point stick go back to where the family tree branching off of the apes) people didn’t have privacy when they had sex or were defecating let alone where they were or what sort of god(s) they did or did not worship. But in those days, with a much more homogenous society, it may not of mattered.

I say “may” because I wonder if such an open society was almost forced to be homogenous at a communistic lowest common denominator level. Perhaps a capitalistic/competitive society requires certain levels of privacy to function. My hypothesis is that trade secrets, secret contracts, and secret finances are necessary for a competitive society. Stated in the strongest (but perhaps indefensible) terms, if you don’t have privacy you cannot “get ahead”. A corollary that follows (perhaps also indefensible) is that if there is no privacy then society is economically doomed to some sort of tribal communistic system. Did the rise of commerce, technology and industry only come about because various tribes had privacy from one another?

Now there may be at least partial solutions to the economic hazards of a completely open society. Patents, for example, are intended to protect information that cannot be protected by trade secrets. Written agreements can be kept private unless a court order demands otherwise. But there are still many vulnerabilities when facial images or location data of people entering corporate headquarters reveals a connection between two or more companies that didn’t used to be there. Or your employer tracking after hours employee location data discovers a handful of engineers getting together at a bank and checking out empty office buildings together.

Imagine what can happen in political campaigns. Knowing who is talking to who gives someone tremendous information about what sort of issue are going to be important and how much money is going to be involved. Sure that information all comes out eventually but when you have the info weeks in advance it will make a huge difference.

Imagine the implications for stalkers. Anytime they wish to go on the hunt they leave their cell phones 50 miles away and know exactly where their prey settled down for the night.

Imagine the implications for an abused spouse trying to hide from their ex.

On a governmental scale the events are less likely but the consequences are catastrophic. Here is a scenario I heard outlined this morning. Monitoring of your water, electricity, and data (Internet) consumption shows a step increase. Examination of your communication traffic might well show that one or more people had a decrease in traffic therefore they are likely
the new residents in your home. Examination of transportation expenditures could confirm it. This fails my Jews in the Attic Test.

Imagine a scenario where a government is deadly hostile to gays (gun owners, Jews, blacks, Tea Party “terrorists”, Christian Fundamentalists, whoever). Public records (while I support gay marriage I sometimes wonder if it is a greater risk than people realize), blogs, and social networks, are scoured to identify the individuals. The communication traffic is examined and the leaders are easily identified even without knowing the content of the communication. Location information is then used in synchronized snatches at 3:00 AM. The plans for the snatch in any realistic “transparent society” would still be opaque because it would be protected out of concern for “nation security”.

Do you think it couldn’t happen in this country?

If so you have forgotten about the black lists in the 1950s. And the Japanese, German, and Italian internments which held over 100,000, of which about 60% were US citizens, during WWII. And you aren’t familiar with the Palmer Raids. Okay, the Palmer Raids were at 9:00 PM, not 3:00 AM. You have me there.

Those events are just the tip of the iceberg and  without computers. Imagine what a government could do with computers and far, far, more detailed information about our location, habits, and social networks.

Someone in law enforcement once told me that the government has a list of everyone in this country who has training as a sniper and “keeps close track of them” in what sounded like nearly daily updates on their locations and somewhat less frequent updates on their attitudes toward high level government officials. How many high-power rifle shooters also have their names on some list?

In a “transparent society” what does it matter if there are lists like that, right? You can have your lists too! But some lists are scarier than others and will always be secret for “reasons of national security”.

Although some have advocated deliberately adding noise to your digital footprint unless this is automatically done by your own computer at near zero cost per transaction you are soon going to get tired of the game. And if FinCEN can’t pierce the noise they will just make it illegal. And, as a person with a Masters degree in communication theory where we learned to pull signals out of noise, I don’t think it would be that hard to detect the noise, pull out the true signal, and then give greater attention to those people.

A few years ago I mentioned to someone in the banking industry that I did almost all my financial transaction in cash. Checks, credit and debit cards where used far less than most people. I was told that, for certain, put me on a list.

Perhaps my view is biased by reading too many books like Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Plotting Hitler’s Death, and Bloodlands—Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, but I contend a “Transparent Society” is very risky. I still don’t have any good answers short of “dropping off the grid” which just doesn’t scale. I have some possible answers which I would be glad to discuss in private but I just don’t have the time to implement them let alone deploy them on a scale where it could make a material difference even if they were effective and could avoid being declared illegal when detected.

The one method of last resort, a doomsday plan, which appears to be the least distasteful if things get really bad are the Second Amendment remedies. But even without formal gun and/or gun owner registration our society is already transparent enough that a “first strike” on the top 10,000 or so gun owners/activists with follow ups on a few hundred thousand more (remember the numbers from the WWII internment camps?) might be sufficiently effective to neutralize even it.

I’m told I’ll never have to worry about that. I suspect most of the people that tell me that are absolutely correct but for the wrong reason. I’ll be in the “first pass”.

Let them start with John Kerry

Posted on by

While I can understand the impulse if this were to be implemented I think it should be first applied to the likes of John Kerry who says stupid things like:

The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

This was in regard to the Tea Party who he claims “held the country hostage” during the debt ceiling debates.

“Everybody knows”? I would like to suggest Senator Kerry reexamine the last election results in terms of how many people believe what the Tea Party candidates have to say.

It’s going to get worse before it gets better

Posted on by

S&P downgraded the U.S. debt rating. And it’s not looking good for the future either:

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners–lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government’s debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at ‘AA+’.

And with each downgrade the interest rates increase which makes the debt burden more difficult to bear which makes it more likely another downgrade is coming.

Hope and change just keeps coming.

Mass printing of money is almost for certain in our future. I figure than in another couple years I can probably pay off our mortgage with that half ounce of gold in one of my safes or a few hundred pounds of lentils…

Quote of the day—Democratic aide

Posted on by

I just remember the question. I sort of think it sort of speaks to a larger issue of guns in society. I guess the question is, if legislation affects people who don’t follow the law. I think, ultimately, more guns on the street isn’t the answer.

I guess the simple answer is, there is no place for them in society. What purpose do they serve?

Democratic aide
March 22, 2011
In response to the question, “How would more legal restrictions on legal gun-owners affect criminals and their illegal possession of firearms.”
Everything you need to know about the most recent gun-control debate (but didn’t have anyone to ask), Part II
[The word “simple” applies—as in “simpleton”.

Their entire world view was balanced on a house of cards and a gentle puff caused their universe to collapse into a black hole. And their response was, “We want to ban them all.”

That is behavior consistent with bullies everywhere. If you show them to be fools they will beat you up and take your property.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

There exist heat pumps that can heat our homes with greater than 100% efficiency compared to converting the electrical/mechanical energy directly into heat.

Could there exist a means to make a “light pump” and convert large quantities of infrared light (thermal energy) into smaller quantities of visible light as a means of artificial lighting at something greater than the abysmal  efficiencies of our existing light sources?

Quote of the day—Donna Davis

Posted on by

There are too many guns around already; we don’t need more, and in a public place like that, I’d like to feel safe if I’m going to the park. If there’s a gun there, I don’t want to be there.

Donna Davis
August 4, 2011
Local Governments Have Until Oct. to Remove Gun Control Laws
[And just how many is too many? I suspect all she knows is that there is more than zero and that is too many for her. If that is the case then Ms. Davis needs to move to a different country because in this country what she wants is clearly unconstitutional.

It’s no different than her saying, “There are too many mixed race couples and blacks around already; we don’t need more, and in a public place like that, I’d like to feel safe if I’m going to the park. If there’s a black person there, I don’t want to be there.”

Ms. Davis, since you don’t even know how many guns are “around” yet you spout off like that anyway you must have crap for brains. And since you want to infringe upon a specific enumerated right you should move to some country which doesn’t recognize the natural right to keep and bear arms. You don’t belong here so rather than whine about it just move. We all will be happier for it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Violence Policy Center

Posted on by

In the 1980s, a very significant shift in gun design and marketing occurred: high-capacity semiautomatic (firing one round per trigger pull) pistols became the dominant product line. Looking at the United States, the most lucrative civilian handgun market in the world, prior to the 1980s the most popular handgun design was the revolver, most often containing six shots. In 1980, semiautomatic pistols accounted for only 32 percent of the 2.3 million handguns produced in America. The majority were revolvers. By 1991 this number had reversed itself with semiautomatic pistols accounting for 74 percent of the 1.8 million handguns produced that year.

Violence Policy Center
July 25, 2011
The Glock Pistol: A Favorite of Mass Shooters
[I love it when our opponents make our points for us. What this means is that Glock pistols are protected by the Second Amendment because they are “in common use” (see D.C. v. Heller).

If the VPC and the Brady Campaign people want to ban guns and actually have some chance of success what they should to is go after the guns that might not be protected by the Second Amendment. The guns that might not be protected are the flintlocks, matchlocks, and cap and ball firearms of a century or more ago. That would actually make a certain amount of sense because both the organizations and those type of firearms are only of interest from a historical perspective.—Joe]

Illegal guns explained by Tom Diaz

Posted on by

VPC’s Senior Policy Analyst Tom Diaz explains “illegal guns”. He gets off to a great start with:

The phrase illegal guns really has no value in the way we approach looking at the problem of death and injury in the United States which is from the public health perspective. It’s really sort of a political term that is often used to avoid confronting the bigger problems…

He goes on to explain various ways firearm end up in the hands of those prohibited from owning firearm. He does a pretty good job of it. I really couldn’t find much fault with what he said until the very end when he said the states with lax gun laws needed to have strict gun laws.

What he willfully ignores and fails to mention is that those states with strict gun laws have a strong tendency to have higher rates of violent crime. By myopically only looking at “how did the criminal get a gun” rather than “what firearms policies result in increased public safety” he completely fails at the presumed goal of his organization, The Violence Policy Center. It should be abundantly clear that Tom Diaz is not interested in policies that reduce criminal violence. He is interested in restricting access to firearms. His organization wants to ban firearms and infringe upon the specific enumerated rights of innocent people. It’s shameful the interviewer, “Eight Forty-Eight” only presented the position of an organization which advocates for illegal government acts.

No good answers

Posted on by

Privacy is more and more a thing of the past:

In one experiment, Acquisti’s team identified individuals on a popular online dating site where members protect their privacy through pseudonyms. In a second experiment, they identified students walking on campus — based on their profile photos on Facebook. In a third experiment, the research team predicted personal interests and, in some cases, even the Social Security numbers of the students, beginning with only a photo of their faces.

Carnegie Mellon researchers also built a smartphone application to demonstrate the ability of making the same sensitive inferences in real-time. In an example of “augmented reality,” the application uses offline and online data to overlay personal and private information over the target’s face on the device’s screen.

“The seamless merging of online and offline data that face recognition and social media make possible raises the issue of what privacy will mean in an augmented reality world,” Acquisti said.

Cloud computing will continue to improve performance times at cheaper prices, and online people-tagging and face recognition software will continue to provide more means of identification.

“Ultimately, all this access is going to force us to reconsider our notions of privacy,” Acquisti said. “It may also affect how we interact with each other. Through natural evolution, human beings have evolved mechanisms to assign and manage trust in face-to-face interactions. Will we rely on our instincts or on our devices, when mobile phones can predict personal and sensitive information about a person?”

This technology has profound implications for both good and evil. Surveillance cameras can scan our sidewalks for wanted criminals as well as political dissidents. And the app for your cell phone can do a background check on your daughter’s date or identify a TSA agent in line at the grocery store.

I worry about this but don’t have any good answers. It seems that about the best you can hope for is that you have a twin* such that you can raise reasonable doubt in those situations where it really matters.

* My twin was discovered by AntiTango.

Quote of the day—Carolyn McCarthy

Posted on by

I don’t understand why people can’t have common sense. Large magazines do not need to be part of it. The large manufacturers, they should even take a moral point of view in not selling them to ordinary citizens through the gun stores. The police and military can still use them. But I just morally think they should not look to sell them to the average citizen.

Carolyn McCarthy
July 28, 2011
Norway shooter: Ammo clips were from U.S.
[Yes, it’s “the shoulder thing that goes up” Carolyn McCarthy demonstrating her ignorance and bigotry again.

“Common sense” is a big issue with these folks isn’t it? It must be because arithmetic is beyond them and/or they know the numbers don’t support their conclusions.

And how does one “morally think”? I’m pretty sure that is one of the same argument used by those opposed to mixed race and homosexual marriages. That’s sure some good company you keep there McCarthy. I’ll bet you and Fred Phelps would get along just fine as long as you both consistently and appropriately swapped the words “gays” and “guns” during the conversation.

The entire article could be a case study in “layers of editorial oversight”. There are things like, “The Norwegian press has written extensively about how Breivik legally acquired his weapons and ammunition, but the mail-order purchase of his ammo from the United States has received little attention in the English-language press.” Apparently the author, Reid J. Epstein, doesn’t know the difference between ammo and “clips”. Although I was surprised that there were two instance where he appropriately used “magazine”.

And McCarthy must be reading the gun blogs because she wasn’t quoted as saying “clips” even once and she is quoted as saying “magazine” twice. Perhaps she is capable of learning. I wonder if someone were to introduce her to the “in common use” part of the Heller decision if she could grok that as well. But probably not. I pretty sure Dorothy Parker had people like her in mind when she explained about horticulture.—Joe]