Author Archives: Joe

Quote of the day—Juanita Jean

Posted on by

There’s very little talk among political junkies in Texas this morning about anything else except Wendy Davis’ stunning and unexpected announcement that she favors open carry in Texas. That means strapping a gun on your hip and parading around town like something out of a damn John Wayne movie. Oh yeah, Texas needs more guys with tiny winkies strapping on holsters.

Juanita Jean
February 8, 2014
Juanita Jean Is Mad As Hell At Wendy Davis
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to Weer’d Beard for the email.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Hartford Courant

Posted on by

Owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

…

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

The Hartford Courant
February 14, 2014
State Can’t Let Gun Scofflaws Off Hook
[H/T to Jay F. for the email.

I agree with The Hartford Courant that felonies cannot go unenforced and that those who deliberately violate the law should be prepared to face the consequences.

I look forward to their trials and their editorials being used as evidence against them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Larry P. Card

Posted on by

I sense a great disturbance in the Force…as if a million liberals screamed out in terror, and were suddenly told by the court to grow up already…

Larry P. Card
Comment on Facebook in regard to a comment of mine to the post May-Issue CCW struck down in California.
[But will they grow up now?

No. They will not grow up now. There will have to be many, many, more lessons taught before they will be fit to participate in a free society with the rest of us. And many will never be fit for more than prison.—Joe]

Quote of the day—jy151310

Posted on by

The constitution is supposed to protect the government from the people. I can’t see how this will help.

jy151310
February 13, 2014
Comment to Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun
[Sarcasm?

Maybe. But I know people that are mentally messed up enough to believe that and yet they are professionally functional.

I believe that people like this actually exist and this is part of why we have the IRS, NSA, and TSA routinely abusing their power.—Joe]

Update: It’s sarcasm.

May-Issue CCW struck down in California

Posted on by

It is time to hide the sleeping pills and Tequila from the anti-gunners.

California’s “may-issue” CCW has been ruled unconstitutional. This ruling is really big. Both California and Illinois have had their infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms struck down by Federal Courts.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for other states and D.C. to hold on to their oppressive CCW laws.

Here are some quotes from the decision:

The Second Amendment, Heller tells us, secures “the right to ‘protect[] [oneself] against both public and private violence,’ thus extending the right in some form to wherever a person could become exposed to public or private violence.”

…

Writing over thirty years later in what Heller calls the “most important” American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries, id. at 594, St. George Tucker, a law professor and former Antifederalist, affirmed Blackstone’s comments on the British right and commented further on its American dimensions. The right to armed self-defense, Tucker insisted, is the “first law of nature,” and any law “prohibiting any person from bearing arms” crossed the constitutional line.

…

We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the
safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. . . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Id. at 636. Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044.

Repeating this exceedingly important part:

Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.”

The Second Amendment must be respected just as much as the First, or any other article in the Bill of Rights.

This is winning. This is evidence to use at their trials.

Quote of the day—Paul Koning

Posted on by

Prof. Randy Barnett, in his excellent book “Restoring the Lost Constitution” talks at length about this point. Briefly, he argues that you have to think of this (as Weer’d mentions) like the rule for reading a contract. A contract means what the words meant to reasonable people at the time it was signed. If the words change meaning later, that has no effect. Never mind if the words still mean what they did but it’s merely the wishes of one of the parties that have changed.

So it is here. After all, the Constitution is the document that most deserves to be called “Contract with America”. So you have to read each article using the interpretation that normal persons reading it at the time of that article’s adoption would have used.

By the way, that means “original intent” is the wrong term. What matters is not the intent of those who wrote the text — often that’s only a guess and some of the people involved did not have honorable intent anyway. What matters is the common understanding of those who APPROVED the text — the voters who ratified it. And that is easy enough to find out, just read the newspaper discussions and meeting minutes of the time.

If you do this, it’s easy to see that those who oppose the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are dishonest and use fraudulent argument to justify their anti-American goals.

Paul Koning
February 12, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—ebola05
[Shorter version: The U.S. Constitution is the original “Contract with America”.

What isn’t said but I think should have been in the contract is a penalties clause. Something like those who passed and/or enforced laws which were later found to be unconstitutional would be held liable for all legal fees and treble damages.—Joe]

The science is settled

Posted on by

Via ‏@ItsRobbAllen we have an article about a paper demonstrating that mass shootings do not usher in a new age of gun control. In fact it is just the opposite.

Correlation is not causation but from looking at the numbers it seems pretty clear that horrific mass shootings are followed, a year or so later, by less support for gun control than just before the mass shooting.

The authors of the paper are clearly in favor of gun control. They ask, and answer, the question of how to go about “Breaking the Cycle”. The cycle being the “regression to the mean” and a continued drop in support after an initial surge in support for gun control following a particularly horrific mass shooting.

Their answer, in part, is:

To change the shooting cycle, gun control advocates must change the gun culture. But to change the gun culture, gun control advocates must explain, or at least distance themselves from the position that causes the fiercest opposition—that the Brady Campaign sees as its ultimate goal the criminalization of possessing guns. Nelson “Pete” Shields III, a founder of Handgun Control, Inc.—the aptly named progenitor of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence—openly advocated for the elimination of all handguns: “‘We’re going to have to take this one step at a time. . . . Our ultimate goal—total control of all guns—is going to take time.’ The ‘final problem,’ he insisted, ‘is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition’ for ordinary civilians ‘totally illegal.’”197 John Hechinger, a sponsor of the D.C. handgun ban and a board member of Handgun Control, Inc., put it simply: “We have to do away with the guns.”198

The anti-gun people have difficult hurdles to overcome. They must attract supporters that are willing to donate money and time to, at best, only make small incremental, paper-work type, changes to gun laws. They cannot speak or even whisper of banning guns. Without banning, and perhaps even with draconian bans, people with any smarts about them will realize “universal background checks”, “gun free zones”, and restrictive carry laws are just crazy talk. How many people are willing to spend time and money on something that only benefits their cause in some abstract way of encumbering “the gun culture”.

If they could speak of grand plans to ban guns and create a “gun free America” if only given enough money and time then they probably could get more support. But doing so increases their opposition more than their support.

So how to “change” (eliminate) the gun culture? That is another huge hurdle. There are no “anti-gun ranges” or “anti-gun shows” to take people to for fun, learning, and familiarity. A process/cycle has been identified for which the chances of the anti-gun forces breaking is very low. To disrupt the cycle requires a raising the bar to gun ownership such that the propagation of “the gun culture” is inhibited. But raising such a bar is virtually impossible at this time because of the courts and the resistance with which disruption is met with.

It’s a similar problem to that faced by those who advocate for reducing greenhouse gases which contribute to “Global Warming”/”Climate Change”. People like the benefits of those activities which produce the greenhouse gases as a side effect. Any effort to break “the cycle” of greenhouse gas production encounters very stiff resistance on the specifics of the proposed legislative action even though some polling data indicates a sizable portion of the (mostly ignorant) population agree with the vague, overall goals.

One could say that this paper settles the science on the politics of gun control. The gun control people are losing and as long as we continue expanding our culture they will continue to lose.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

To a certain extent guns are like sex. Once someone becomes sexually active they seldom voluntarily become asexual let alone anti-sexual. And so it is with people who learn to use guns in a safe and supportive environment.

Many anti-gun people are proud they have never fired a gun and vow to never shoot one. “Guns only have one purpose!”, they insist. They wear their ignorance with pride and yet demand they should legislate the rules of ownership. And so it is in some social circles in regards to sexual activities.

But most people would laugh and, at their most charitable, say, “How cute!” if monks who had taken vows of celibacy were demanding laws which regulated sexual behavior between consenting adults. “No one needs sex more than once a month!”, they might demand.

And once such people gained control government registration of each sexual union would be “just common sense” to reduce the transmission of sexual diseases. Sympathetic courts would rule that government had an interest in protecting the safety of the citizens and the registration law, no matter how unlikely to be complied with, it has a rational basis and hence overrides the non-enumerated constitutional right to privacy.

And of course many gun control advocates really are nothing but Puritans afraid someone somewhere is having fun.

Quote of the day—ebola05

Posted on by

Anyone who utters the words “the Constitution is a living document” or “the Constitution must be interpreted in the context of the times we live in” believes in a society with no governing rules.

These folks are not “Americans”, but true believers in the Marxist cause.
Ignore them or ridicule them.

ebola05
February 9, 2014
Comment to Second Amendment applies to carrying guns in cars
[I’m not so certain you can safely conclude “the Marxist cause” but I’m confident the rest is correct.—Joe]

Confiscation dampens enthusiasm

Posted on by

Via Rusty Weiss who says:

In the clip seen below, Democrat Assemblyman Joseph Lentol can be heard pleading with McLaughlin that he not share the list “because it has the capacity to dampen the enthusiasm of compromise.”  To which McLaughlin replies, “It sure does, when we talk about the confiscation of assault weapons.”

Yes. Yes it does.

Don’t let anyone tell you, “No one wants to take your guns.”

Quote of the day—John Tkazyik

Posted on by

It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on our right to bear arms, and I will not be a part of any organization that does.

…

Troubled urban areas desperately need an economy that welcomes businesses to locate and remain in our cities. Robust respect for the Second Amendment rights of the law abiding does this by discouraging theft and enhancing personal safety.

Unless Bloomberg and MAIG recognize and implement these principles, their efforts are doomed not only to fail, but also to cause further — if unintended — harm.

John Tkazyik
Mayor of Poughkeepsie New York.
February 5, 2014
Valley View: Mayoral group’s gun agenda is wrong
[If you read the comments you will find they generally don’t believe he had a true change of heart. Rather, he decided he was on the wrong side of the issue because of a shift in political winds.

Whatever.

Regardless of the reason his removal from MAIG and his public support for the 2nd Amendment his actions weakens our opponents and strengthens our side.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Nonsensic-Al

Posted on by

Clearly a solid case of LPB (little penis behavior) compounded with a few dashes of stupidity and a soupcon of entitlement.

Nonsensic-Al
July 24, 2013
Comment to “Fuck All You Libtards,” Pennsylvania Police Chief Announces
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anonymous Conservative

Posted on by

As the amygdala enters high gear, its flagging and weighing functions will deteriorate, and details and complex thoughts will become much less noticed than grossly perceived, broad-stroke emotional stimuli. This is why decisions to make Civil War, or just go wantonly killing every Liberal you can find in a bloody orgy of violence, will not be made rationally, whenever they get made.

…

This all relates to politics, in that Liberals try to quiet their own amygdalae by getting government to stimulate Conservative amygdalae in some way. They want to make Conservatives pay for their birth control, to tax them, to disarm them so they can’t defend their families, to regulate their businesses into oblivion, to force them to confront sexual themes and activities which disgust and repel them, to prevent them from enjoying something under the guise of environmentalism, or prevent them from forming free associations to get healthcare or economic advantage. I mean, Leftists try to make parts of US parks off limits to humans who just want to peacefully enjoy them. They even insist Conservatives stop publicly acknowledging realities that bother the Liberal, from the failure of the multi-cult, to the bad effects from destroying the family unit, all so the Liberal can more easily retreat into a bubble of fantasy and false reality that will help the Leftist avoid all amygdala stimulation. That leftist behavior is all amygdala-stimulating to a freedom-loving K-psychology, and Liberals know this. Liberals are the people who feel good when others are irritated. That is not as uncommon a psychology as people think.

The thing is, when Conservatives reach sufficient levels of amygdala stimulation, they will let the pressure out, and it will likely be in the form of violence. We haven’t evolved that much in the last 500 years. The same humans who gladly hunted Comanche nearly to extinction, fought the revolutionary war, angrily killed their own brothers in the Civil War, happily flame-thrower’d Japanese in the Pacific, dragged Mussolini’s dead body through the streets, ruthlessly wanted blood after 9/11, and murdered Khadafi after torturing him on the spot, are all still around today. Push the right buttons, and all of that can happen again.

The danger for us K-strategists is, we tend to fight without thinking clearly, when we approach Meat’s level of amygdala stimulation – and that level of amygdala stimulation is almost the only time we will actually fight. This can lead us to be easily manipulated by r-strategists into fighting other K-strategists. Few Conservatives, pissed that the Federal government is seizing their guns, will hunt down the nearest unarmed Liberal rabbit hiding in their bedroom, and kill them in cold blood in their own house, as the rabbit pleads their helplessness and innocence. Rather, K-strategists will tend to fight anybody but the Liberal, from heavily armed government agents who come to take guns, to radical Muslims trying to implement Sharia on the streets of America, to K-strategists of another race who have been goaded into wanting to fight us by the Left. Even though the Liberal is a vile creature, and the source of all our problems, we are almost programmed to fight anyone but them.

Anonymous Conservative
February 7, 2014
The Amygdala Hijack In Action – A Video Example
[I can’t begin to explain how strongly this resonates with me. I could give many personal examples in my childhood and countless examples from both personal and political experience from the last 20 years.

We must learn how to use this power against them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—alcibiades_mystery

Posted on by

It will be a multigenerational fight, but we will prevail.

We need to make the gunners irrelevant. Long view, long fight. Challenge everything in the long view. Harass them mercilessly in the short term. We need an ACT UP, sitting in at the gun manufacturers, shaming their spokespeople in public. And absolute frontal attack on all of gun culture beginning now and not ending until their paltry and pathetic arguments have been obliterated.

alcibiades_mystery
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[I also take a long view on this. Someday I hope this will be used as evidence in his trial.—Joe]

Mugme Street news

Posted on by

Via an email from Barron we have this news item:

A 13-year-old boy was sentenced to four months in juvenile detention after he pleaded guilty in King County Juvenile Court on Wednesday to the attempted robbery of a concierge and an attack on two skateboarders in two separate incidents last summer in Westlake Park.

Technically this is one block away from Mugme Street. But it’s close enough and it is a place I walk through nearly every day I go to work.

Then this arrest happened on Mugme street last night:

A 16-year-old girl, suspected  in  several robberies that have occurred in the past couple of months, was arrested last night by officers downtown.

…

A warrant for her arrest was obtained, and a bulletin was distributed to officers.  Last night, just before 10:00 pm, officers located the suspect near Third and Pike and took her into custody.

It’s not safe here. I want to move back to Idaho and play with my guns and explosives.

Not so random thought of the day

Posted on by

The quote of the day by Lyle this morning caused me to do some more thinking.

I’m certain most of my readers already get this at some level but for me putting it in different words made it more clear.

Libertarians will sometimes point out that government and all laws are declaration of intent to use force. From the law that says pay a sales tax on your purchase of a pair of shoes to the law that says do not murder. In the final analysis they all mean that if you don’t do as the laws says people with guns will hunt you down and either force you to do as the laws says or punish you for your failure to do so. And if you resist they will use the guns against you.

This is true. And it is a necessary part of government and probably is a societal requirement in population groups larger than a few hundred. But what I just realized is the same observation could be used in “the other direction”. Government must be controlled so that it does not become a outlaw. This means men with guns must be willing and able to hunt down the agents of government and force them to comply with the law and/or punish them.

The Constitution is the law authorizing and governing our government and the Second Amendment is the ultimate enforcement authorization for the people to keep government within the bounds of that law.

Those that would demand we give up our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms are demanding there be no effective enforcement of the limits to government. This is no different than there being laws and courts but without a police force to enforce the laws and court decisions. And that is another example of crazy talk by those that want to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.

Quote of the day—Lyle

Posted on by

We already have “limits” on paper and those aren’t being observed. I don’t see how anyone can believe that some new and shiny set of “limits” will fare any better. The only true limit is death or the threat of it.

How many times have we scoffed at the notion of a “gun free zone” sign deterring a criminal? A constitutional limit is exactly the same as a “gun free zone” sign – that piece of paper or parchment isn’t going to magically stop anyone, and most especially it won’t stop anyone when there are trillions of dollars and near absolute power on the other side of that piece of paper.

Lyle
Comment to Quote of the day—M.E. Thomas
[Shorter version: “A constitution without the right of the people to keep and bear arms is like a ‘gun free zone’ without metal detectors and armed guards.”—Joe]

Be prepared

Posted on by

I spent some time going through the anti-gun talking points document published by the “Progressive Majority Action Fund”.

For a moment I was concerned they might have used my video in this paragraph:

In the hands of someone with practice, an assault weapon can fire almost as fast as a machinegun. You can see this on videos all over YouTube, here for example. But even without much practice, any fool can fire two rounds per second, emptying a 30 round magazine in 15 seconds or less.

But the link comes up as “This video is unavailable. Sorry about that.”

Good.

The document is filled with half-truths and outright lies “errors”. They claim suppressors (they call them silencers, which is the same term the ATF uses) and machine guns are illegal. You can buy suppressors at many gun stories in the Seattle area as well as in most other states. It requires filling out a form and the paying of a $200 tax to the ATF but they aren’t illegal.

They claim the blocking of sales via background checks is proof the background check system “works”. Well, yes. For certain definitions of “works”. Such as casting a chilling effect on the exercise of a specific enumerated right.

But to believe the background checks make people safer is crazy talk. Even the INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE AND NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES says the issue is far from settled:

Controlling access to guns through background checks or restrictions on particular types of firearms remains controversial, and the effectiveness of various types of control is inadequately researched.

Read the anti-gun document and the National Academies document and be prepared.

What was the objective?

Posted on by

April 16, 2013 there was an attack on communications in the area near San Jose California. Minutes later there was an attack on a electrical power substation.

Stories on the events are here:

The WSJ February 5 version is the most complete. But it requires a subscription. Some of the most insightful information comes from this article, such as:

“This wasn’t an incident where Billy-Bob and Joe decided, after a few brewskis, to come in and shoot up a substation,” Mark Johnson, retired vice president of transmission for PG&E, told the utility security conference, according to a video of his presentation. “This was an event that was well thought out, well planned and they targeted certain components.”

…

Mr. Wellinghoff, then chairman of FERC, said that after he heard about the scope of the attack, he flew to California, bringing with him experts from the U.S. Navy’s Dahlgren Surface Warfare Center in Virginia, which trains Navy SEALs. After walking the site with PG&E officials and FBI agents, Mr. Wellinghoff said, the military experts told him it looked like a professional job.
In addition to fingerprint-free shell casings, they pointed out small piles of rocks, which they said could have been left by an advance scout to tell the attackers where to get the best shots.
“They said it was a targeting package just like they would put together for an attack,” Mr. Wellinghoff said.

Ry stopped by my office today to discuss something else and we talked about it some. Ry has friends “everywhere”. One of his friends works for one of the companies that owned some of the fiber optic cables which were cut. Indications are the perpetrators had inside knowledge about the communication system.

There have been no arrests to date. The entire operation shows good planning, execution, and post operation discipline at keeping their mouths shut.

But, as Ry repeatedly asked me this morning, what was the end goal? They didn’t really accomplish anything. Power was rerouted and there wasn’t a significant power outage. They knocked out the substation for a month but “so what?”

Ubu52 trolls with:

To me, this sounds more like one of these Patriot militias trying to start something than it does anything else. So where are the rest of the people just itching for a civil war?

Yeah. Right. And how would attacking infrastructure used by everyone help their cause? These weren’t stupid people. Next?

Mark Johnson, quoted above in the WSJ is also quoted in Foreign Policy as saying:

My personal view is that this was a dress rehearsal.

I’m skeptical. If it was a dress rehearsal then why wait so long for the main event? And it wasn’t exactly a ‘dry’ run. A successful dry run would have been undetected. This was not intended to be undetected.

The dominate speculation on the gun email list at work is foreign terrorists.

Maybe. But why not follow it up with similar attacks? It’s been nearly a year now. Does it take that long to train and coordinate a dozen teams to take down a multi-state region?

An additional reason I’m skeptical of any hypothesis of it being a dress rehearsal is that I would think they would have “burned the bridge” to their inside knowledge of the security communications with that attack. They would assume that coupon would expire within a month or two after they used it. The hardening of the electrical power substations to attacks is much more difficult than hardening the communications vaults and plugging information leaks. They would have to do the “live show” within a week or two to use the same methods as in this attack.

I proposed the following two hypothesizes to Ry which he didn’t immediately shoot down:

  1. They had something additional planned but the power didn’t go out in the target area like they figured it would so the end goal was not attempted.
  2. Proof of capability for an extortion demand but they very nearly got caught, were spooked, and chickened out on following through.

It is interesting stuff regardless of the objective.

Update: See also the Infogalactic entry.

Mugme Street news

Posted on by

From KOMO News:

According to the Seattle Police Department, two men were arguing at the Glen Hotel, a Low Income Housing Institute building, at 1413 Third Avenue around 10 a.m. when one shot the other.

Via an IM from Ry who noted that this is just a half block south from where we work.

See also the Seattle Police blog post.