The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that 10-12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced domestically each year, while billions more are imported.
Previously I had been inferring the total sales were in the 10-12 billion range.
Regardless, if, as many anti-gun people claim, guns are only good for killing there sure are a lot of defective guns and/or ammunition out there.
Via Kevin.
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.
…
S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
…
Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.
“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.
“Large capacity feeding devices” are in “common use” and as such are specifically protected by the Heller decision. The “common ground” we have is that you are willing to use force to infringe upon this guaranteed right and if necessary I’m willing to use force to defend it.
Molon Labe.
In response to Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic On Terrorism and Gun Violence, a 1,000-to-1 Spending Gap.
Terrorism isn’t a specific enumerated right to be protected. Gun ownership is. How much money is spent by the “Bureau of Religion and Speech” to license and regulate the practice of religion and book printing and distribution?
Those that want to “prevent gun violence” by restricting firearms shouldn’t have any problem with preventing violence done by religious extremist by restricting religious materials and activities.
Nor should they have a problem with preventing racial or gay bashing crimes by restricting the free association of people of different races and sexual orientation.
The infringement of everyone’s specific enumerated rights because some people abuse those rights is repugnant and cannot be tolerated. The abuser should be punished and those that exercise their rights responsibly must continue to be free to do so.
Even most pro-gun control liberals don’t think of guns and gun ownership the way the abolitionists persuaded Americans to think of slavery — as an intrinsic evil that has no justification whatsoever. They just think that the benefits, comforts, and pleasures that law-abiding, safety-conscious gun owners derive from their Second Amendment freedoms are outweighed by the dangers posed by allowing the reckless and the careless to own and carry weapons. This is not a crazy view by any means. But liberals should recognize the limits of their logic the next time they pour themselves a drink.
Ross Douthat
July 26, 2012
On Gun Control and Prohibition
[The “pour themselves a drink” comment refers to the damage done by drunk drivers, alcoholism, spousal abuse, broken families, etc. and the lost cause of prohibition.
This is from the opinion page of the New York Times!
I don’t know about “most” but certainly a lot of anti-gun people do think of guns as intrinsically evil.
He also cites the long discredited study that guns are 43 times more likely… but for the NYT this was an awesome editorial.—Joe]
Wow!
Via Kevin.
In their Ten Thousand Commandments 2012 report which was released in June, the CEI estimates the cost of US government regulation at $US 1.75 TRILLION. That is just under half (48 percent) of the budget of the federal government. It is almost ten times the total of all corporate taxes collected and almost double the total collected from individual income taxes. It is also one-third higher than the total of all pre-tax corporate profits. It is the hidden cost of doing business in an interventionist economy. The fact that the cost of complying with these regulations is substantially higher than the total of corporate profits is a stark illustration of the end result of economic intervention. That end result is capital consumption.
In the US, the federal government lists its regulations in what is called the Code of Federal Regulations. These rules of the economic “game” cover 169,000 pages and more than ten new ones are added every day, seven days a week and 365 days a year. In 2011, the US Congress passed a total of 81 new “laws” while government agencies issued 3,807 new regulations. As the CEI points out, if there ever was an example of government without the consent of ANYONE – this is it.
Bill Buckler
July 22, 2012
The Cost Of Government Regulation: $1.75 Trillion
[Emphasis in the original.
And please don’t ever forget there are those who believe they were “born to regulate”, “And it is a thrill; it’s a high… I love it; I absolutely love it.”
I need a new frontier.—Joe]
An Idaho women used gun to prevented her own rape twice in the span of a few days:
Twin Falls police were called to the woman’s house shortly after midnight Thursday and again Saturday afternoon to reports that two different men had broken into the home.
The woman told police a man rang the doorbell early Friday, asked her name and then said: “I’m here for you,” before forcing his way into the house.
The woman said the man chased her through the house. She went into the bedroom to grab a 9 mm gun, but the man grabbed the weapon. The gun went off during the struggle. No one was injured, but she said the man fled.
The woman also fired a shot Saturday and held the uninjured man at gunpoint until police arrived, court records said.
According to one report:
The woman called police several times as her house was broken into.
The police can’t always protect you even if you do get a call through to them as you are being attacked.
Another report says the gun she used with the first guy was taken by the intruder:
Police say a shot was fired during the struggle, but it didn’t hit her or the intruder. The wife says the man then took the gun from her and fled the home.
It is good thing that she had a second gun and/or there wasn’t a waiting period to purchase a replacement.
Had she known the whole story a week earlier she might have prevented the attacks with a divorce lawyer:
An Idaho man is charged with soliciting men to rape his wife through a posting in the “casual encounters” section of Craigslist.
…
Prosecutors say that without his wife’s knowledge or consent, the man posted a classified ad posing as a woman who fantasized about being raped, and then exchanged emails with the men who responded to arrange the assaults.
But 20/20 foresight isn’t an option. Multiple jacketed hollow-points are.
The Brady Campaign, named after Ronald Reagan assistant James Brady, wants to reboot the national conversation and part of that, it seems, means taking its name off the masthead. The group will launch a new website later tonight called wearebettterthanthis.org (it’s not live yet) that will play down its sponsorship by the Brady campaign.
The idea, he said, is rescue the debate from the poles on either side of the gun control issue.
Z. Byron Wolf
July 23, 2012
In Wake of Colorado Massacre, Gun Control Supporters Seek Reboot
[Interesting…
As an American who was shocked and horrified by the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, I am committed to joining a meaningful conversation about how we can prevent the future loss of innocent life.
I appreciate the very appropriate expressions of sympathy for the victims from both of you. However, I think anyone seeking the highest office in our nation is responsible for doing more.
I am asking you to offer to the American people specific solutions that will prevent tragedies like this from continuing to happen in our nation — because, I firmly believe, we are:
[Image of people holding a sign saying “BETTER THAN THIS”.]
Compare the above to this from 1997 when they called themselves Handgun Control, Inc.:
Although 31 states have now denied their law enforcement officers discretion in the issuance of concealed weapon licenses, the gun lobby lost every attempt to further liberalize these systems last year.
Handgun Control, Inc. and their supporters were able to block shall issue in every state legislature that year.
Since then:
It should be very telling that we don’t see the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, or any other pro-gun owner rights organizations changing their names to get more support.
If this were a business they would sell out to one of their competitors for about a fourth their annual gross sales and close up shop. But I suppose that isn’t really an option in this case. The only thing of value the Brady Campaign has these days is a few names on a mailing list and I suspect a good percentage of those are NRA and Second Amendment Foundation members trying to keep a watch on the anti-gun people.
Update: The link to their web site had a typo in it (in my original source). The statement about the domain being owned by someone else is not true. Whois reports the correct one was registered by Domains By Proxy, LLC via Go Daddy.—Joe]
Sorry u are full of Krap and to allow guns everywhere makes u a target in a good poker hand. U lose the element of surprise.
Make my day. Carry a gun and I will slap your face in disgrace.. Guns are unamerican and unpatriotict. The NRA wants to sell guns and ammo not for a revolution but for enjoyment and protection. Our law enforcement will shoot or arrest your ass. Who is to tell the difference from the good gun totters and the bad gun toyters . We want to protect a democracy not a republic or a neo nazi idealogy or anarchy . We whom are born in america and sreves the country under a commander in chief are truly americans.
jacksonsam2
Comment sent to www.GunLaws.com
Via email from Alan Korwin July 23, 2012.
[It’s nice to know the quality of the anti-gun people is being maintained at an appropriate level. I just wonder what drugs they are self-medicating with.—Joe]
Paul Barrett at Business Week has weighed in on the Aurora theater shooting. I was pleased with what I didn’t see but expected. In the past and as recently as last Friday he as pushed for a 10 round maximum on magazine capacity. This is despite me showing him a video of me shooting 35 rounds in less that 16 seconds with 10 round magazines.
In his most recent editorial he suggests something else:
If you really want to stop mass shootings in public places, demand that owners of movie theaters, supermarkets, playgrounds, and you-name-the-venue hire armed security guards to keep watch for people dressed in body armor and carrying weapons. We know how to do this. We do it at airports. It’s not foolproof: Remember the would-be underwear bomber and the shoe bomber, stopped not by X-ray machines but by their own incompetence and alert fellow passengers? Still, rent-a-cops are a step toward greater security. Heck, every major professional sports venue checks fans for outside alcohol and weapons. Why couldn’t every movie theater?
If there had been a guard at every door of the multiplex in Aurora, the killer would not have been able to stroll out and back in through the emergency exit. This mass killing would not have taken place.
Barrett is a smart guy and acknowledges it’s not foolproof. Obviously the security guards are wearing “shoot me first uniforms”. There is a reason Air Marshals are always in plain clothes. But this obvious loophole in the idea is not the biggest problem. The problem is economics. Since Occupy Wall Street did their thing last fall with ground zero Seattle being across the street from where I work the sidewalks and lobbies of many of building have unarmed security guards. What does it cost for one security guard per year? I can’t imagine that after all the overhead it would be less that $50K/year. Add training and equipping guards and insurance for what probably would be higher risks would probably add another $5K per year.
Does anyone think every playground, market, and theater is going to be able to afford that?
But the suggestion is a step in the right direction. If people accept the concept it’s a smaller step to accept “volunteer” security guards wearing plain clothes. Signs stating “Concealed Carry Welcomed Here” and discounts for people open carrying might be a bigger deterrent than the unaffordable, easily defeated, uniformed security guards.
After I had forcefully expressed my extreme frustration with my insane boss at Microsoft a manager higher in the chain of command told me, “It’s good to have clarity.” Although I was infuriated at the time the phrase stuck with me and I see it’s application to many situations.
Obviously, with clarity of the problem the solution set is smaller and more likely to succeed. What’s even more interesting to me is that in so many of the cases the clarity of widely varying situations lead to the exact same, obviously correct, solution.
Some examples will make my point. The following are not even half of the things that immediately come to mind. But some were close enough telling the stories would have been somewhat repetitive.
Nearly a dozen years ago I met a young woman, Patrycja, at a party who after learning I was an engineer cheerfully told me of all the money she had been making recently. She was a stripper at a club (no, she wasn’t working the party I was at, she was fully clothed) and although she made very good money there it was nothing to what she made from a recent “gold mine” she had been working. Some middle aged engineer who had near zero social skills and had never had a girl friend had been paying her for private visits to his home. No, she never had sex with him. She would strip and/or just spend time with him a couple times a week for a few hours. He had lived alone and frugally for many years while making good money. He had a lot of savings. In the last few weeks he had paid her over $20,000. He had another $80,000 or so left in savings and in a few months she expected she would have collected all of it.
Maybe the guy thought he was getting his money’s worth but my thoughts were different. I never, ever, wanted to have anything to do with this person again. I knew I probably wouldn’t remember what she looked like a year (or 20) later but I wrote down her unusual name so that I wouldn’t forget.
It was good to have clarity. That relationship, even though just a few minutes at a party, needed to be terminated.
Over 30 years ago my boss repeatedly told me, “You’re the project engineer on this, make the decisions and get it done.” But then a few weeks later a group meeting he was telling us how important my project was and how it was going to make such a huge impact to the company and especially those that had stock options. “Who gets stock options?”, I asked. His answer floored me, “I of course have stock options and at review time the company allocates options that I can distribute to the people I manage. I give them to my project managers.” I was shocked that he would say this in front of everyone in our group because most of them were clearly not project managers. Still, it would be good for me even though I hadn’t been awarded any stock options yet. But then he continued, “And my project managers are Jim and Bill.”
When he told me I was the project manager on the project he just meant he wanted me to assume that role. He didn’t mean that was my actual title or that it meant anything beyond assuming responsibility for making the decisions. And further research indicated that the two people with the actual title of Project Manager were more than we really should have for the number of people in the group. I wasn’t going to be promoted anytime soon.
It was good to have clarity. I terminated the relationship and moved on to another company.
For many years I unsuccessfully tried to get my wife to go to counseling with me. I finally got a highly recommended book for couples and we listened to it as we driving from the Seattle area to Idaho. After a couple chapters she asked me what I thought of our marriage and what needed to change. I told her we needed to work on some things and I enumerated some items that could be improved. She unfastened her seatbelt, opened the door, and tried to jump out as we were driving 60 MPH down the freeway.
That was sufficient clarity that something was seriously wrong and further investigation was instigated. There were compelling signs there was a personality disorder involved. If true then there was no chemical imbalance that drugs could mitigate. Counseling and therapy is so rarely helpful and problematic that most therapists refuse these type of patients.
I was 95% sure but not entirely convinced it was time to terminate the relationship. Within an hour and 20 minutes after having been served papers she tried to kill herself again.
A few days later when talking to my counselor she said the last suicide attempt pretty much confirmed my suspicion about the personality disorder. But what was odd, she said, was that my wife had only one husband for 35+ years. Most women with her condition would have had three or four by her age. “Mere mortals,” she said, “Would have left her years ago.”
It was good to have clarity. There are no second thoughts or wondering if terminating the relationship was the right thing to do.
The government deliberately gave and let sales go through for thousands of guns to known violent criminals hoping to “recover them at crime scenes.” And just what sort of crime scenes would they expect those guns to show up at? It sure wasn’t going to be jaywalking, tax evasion, or running a lemonade stand without a license. If they had two or more brain cells to rub together they had to know some of those guns would be used to murder and injure innocent victims. Hundreds died from the use of those guns and there are laws that if enforced against the government for those gun transfers would put people in jail for decades if not life sentences. As far as I know there are no exceptions in the law for government agents and I know for certain there aren’t going to be any prosecutions for those gun transfers. Those people believe they are above the law. U.S. Attorney General Holder and President Obama all but.admit that by refusing to cooperate with investigators.
Although it is not yet certain the leading hypothesis for the motivation was to justify another assault weapon ban. The direct infringement of a specific enumerated right under the color of law which results in the death of innocent people is punishable by death under 18 USC 242. Hence, a case can be made for the death penalty for the government perpetrators. But that will not be given even a second’s thought by prosecutors.
It was good to have clarity. It was clear to me but perhaps not the general population who really don’t know the law and the details of Operation Fast and Furious.
The day Obama Care was ruled constitutional Ry told me something like, “Things are clear now. There is no mistaking where we stand.”
The constitutional limits of power are relegated to the status of a myth. If taxes and/or penalties can be levied and collected for failure to buy a product or service imagine the corruption that enables. What kind of return on “investment” can made by a company which bribes enough politicians such that every family or person in this country had to buy a particular service or product?
The only limits to government corruption and power in our country are the limits of physics and economics.
It’s good to have clarity. It’s time to terminate the relationship.
I need a new frontier.
Guest post from Rolf.
“Let’s Roll!”
Or
Re-defining the “no-win” situation and dealing with sociopaths intent on mass shootings and murder
The “Kobayashi Maru” scenario has become a famous “no-win” situation. It is presented as a situation where no matter what choice the person makes, lots of people die, and they “lose.” Facing a “no-win” isn’t anything a person ever wants to face, but seeming no-wins do happen, so, what DO you do? Lie down and die, already? That, to my mind, is never the right answer, so then… what IS? Is it possible to think like Kirk and change how things play out, so something like a win is possible in a seeming no-win situation?
The first thing to do is to re-evaluate how you define “win,” particularly in light of the perpetrators likely goals. If “all the bad guys get caught/killed, and no innocents get hurt” is impossible, then what is the best you can aim for? Maybe all that is possible is to make the final outcome suck less. Maybe it is laying the groundwork for a future win – after all, the battle of Thermopylae was a loss for the Greeks (with the 300 Spartans and another thousand or so Greeks dying to a man, and their king butchered), but it laid the foundation for major defeats of the Persians later. Maybe it is nothing more than reducing number of total casualties, even at the possible (or perhaps likely) loss of your own life. Todd Beamer and the passengers of Flight 93 stormed the cockpit after it had been taken by hijackers, knowing that they were already headed for near certain death after hearing of the WTC crashes – their actions likely reduced the total number of deaths by denying the hijackers on their flight the opportunity to crash into a crowded target. His last known words in the counter-attack were “Let’s Roll!”
Looking at many of the modern mass shootings, such as Columbine, Stockton, Virginia Tech, Aurora (Batman), Luby’s Cafeteria, Ft Hood, and more, there are some similarities that may help change how we think about responding to them:
Essentially, anything that denies the attacker HIS goals should be considered a point on the defenders score-card. If he wants to see immobilizing terror, let him face the fury of righteous anger instead.
Obviously, if you are carrying a gun and you are close enough for it to be practical, drawing and returning fire at an appropriate time would be a great option, but what if the situation is more complicated? Most teachers are not allowed to carry guns on school grounds; in a crowded theater, cafeteria, office, or mall, there may be LOTS of moving no-shoots; and so-forth.
In a case where a nut wants a body-count and associated media attention, what might constitute a “win?” I’d say anything that meets one or more of the following (in no particular order):
I can only think of one course of action that would apply in most lone-gunman mass shooting cases: EVERYONE on the scene channel the inner Super Hero, Marine, mama grizzly, Todd Beamer, or whatever amps up their kill instincts to 11, and as a group do a mass “charge the ambush!” with the express intent of taking his screw-cap off, ripping off his arm and beating him to death with the bloody stump, or stopping him in any way possible. Grab, bite, hit, pull down his pants, pull his hat over his eyes, jam a finger in the action of his gun, blind him, throw things at him, shine a flashlight in his eyes, do anything and everything you can to slow him down, tie him up, foul his vision, screw up his aim, distract him, cause him pain or disability. Assume others are coming and doing the same. If just one person does this, sadly, it may just hasten their demise; but if even a handful do it, he’s done for, he can be dragged down and halted.
In a true worst case scenario, like the Beslan Siege (dozens of heavily armed religious fanatics not only willing but almost eager to die, with large quantities of explosives, suicide vests and fully automatic weapons) there are going to be a lot of bodies in any case. In a “nearly” worst case scene, such as the Aurora Batman shooting, where he was well-armed, in a crowded theater in the dark, wearing some body-armor, used gas/smoke bombs, and he started shooting during an action scene, the transition will be hard to recognize. But if everyone, once they recognized the threat for what it was, had yelled out, thrown cell phones, flashed lights at him (such as cell phone camera flash), and CHARGED, he could have been dragged down, and many innocents saved. It would have been ugly, but possibly over quickly; it is extremely unlikely that it would have been worse than the 70 killed or injured that occurred.
In a typical school “gunman seen, lock down!” scenario, normally they have all the teachers close and lock classroom doors, draw the blinds, turn off the lights, and hunker down and wait… but there is NO plan for what to do if the gunman actually comes in your door, beyond pray, comply, and hope you get shot last! The best course is to follow procedure as far as it is, but then make sure you surround the door a little ways back, with the teacher and biggest / strongest closest. Everyone picks up something they can throw – textbook, chair, can of soda, laptop, or whatever (my favorite is the big heavy iron three-hole punch). The “front row” around the door has chairs or desk handy. If the gunman comes in, then everyone throw what they have and CHARGE! The front row holds their desks/chairs in front ( or up high in front of their chests) and CHARGES, with intent to batter, beat, rip apart, and disassemble the gunman. This sort of training and mindset MUST start in the schools
What does this do?
It has been known at least since the early Greek phalanxes 2500 years ago that massed infantry charges can be very effective, especially when they outnumber their opponents. Even heavily armored mounted knights feared to enter into a mass of infantry standing their ground with simple weapons, because once they were dragged off their horses the mass of grasping hands and clubs would crush them. Many on the political right will see this as common sense; many on the left may find it abhorrent (even though THEY are always the ones talking about solidarity and collective action). While the average man-on-the-street is not to be confused with a hoplite of yesteryear, I believe that the average American IS capable of learning that sometimes individuals taking collective action for the common good really IS the best course.
When a psycho is looking for sheep to slaughter, intending to see terror in their eyes and ready compliance at gunpoint, hoping to have his twisted ego stroked by his control over them, let him instead see the blazing rage of righteous anger, and feel the pain of furious defense ripping at his flesh, and know the pain and fear he had hoped to inflict on others. Let his battered and beaten face be shown on the screen, swollen and without arrogance or contempt, because HE GOT BEATEN TO A BLOODY PLUP BY THE VERY PEOPLE HE DISPISED. That will knock his psyche down more than a crowd of cops taking them would, where he can brag about how tough he was to stop. Let the sociopaths have no more than a moment of victory, like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, before suffering a crushing, absolute, and total defeat at the very hands of those they wronged. Deny them any hint of a win in the final score. The next psycho will decide it might be safer and less humiliating to choose another path.
Is the reason conservatives are in love with guns they are a phallic symbol?
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
July 21, 2012
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]
It can happen anytime, anywhere. Even on an Army post like Fort Hood, or a police station, as happened in Washington D.C. back in the 90s.
Are YOU ready?
Armed?
Proficient?
Or is it your day to play sheep?
Joe Waldron
July 21, 2012
Email to the Yahoo WA-CCW list: Reporting and preparedness.
[I’m expecting a guest post for tomorrow that will amplify greatly on this theme.—Joe]
Gun control advocates sputter at their own impotence. The National Rifle Association is politically ascendant. And Barack Obama’s White House pledges to safeguard the Second Amendment in its first official response to the deaths of at least 12 people in a mass shooting at a new Batman movie screening in suburban Denver.
Jennifer Agiesta and Jack Gillum
July 21, 2012
Calls for gun control stir little support
[This is good but we need to keep pushing while the enemies of freedom are on the defensive.
Why do you need a gun in the mall, the restaurant, or the movie theater? Because the mentally ill and others with evil intent know no boundaries.—Joe]
I’m over a 1000 miles away and as far as I know don’t know anyone that was in the theater that was shot up last night. But still it’s very upsetting and my sympathy goes out to all those who were injured, killed, and/or had family and/or friends there. I’m just glad the murderer didn’t think past getting and using guns to do his evil deed.
The following is from putting on my “black hat” to do a threat assessment of our vulnerabilities to mass murders in public spaces.
It could have been much worse had the murderer chosen to use something other than guns as his weapon of choice. In a sense we could say that it’s a good thing guns are readily available because if had he used other tools the carnage could have included everyone in the theater.
There are indications the guy that shot up the theater in Colorado had mental health issues so we may never know and/or understand what the motivations might have been. Trying to make sense of the actions and/or thoughts of the mentally ill is a fools errand. But assuming the goal was maximum carnage there were better ways to accomplish this.
What follows is one way that someone could have killed more people in the same exact location. This is modeled on the plan used for the Happy Land Fire (87 dead) and by the Columbine murderers. The Columbine bombs failed so they made up an alternate plan on the spot when the first plan failed. The first plan was actually pretty good but really needed more people and they should have tested their explosive devices. Read the book Columbine for a much better understanding of what happened and the motivations. Had “Plan A” worked there could have been thousands dead.
If the murderer was able to get long guns into the theater then getting multiple backpacks into the theater should have been possible too. For example one could prevent the emergency exit from latching (duct tape for example) and then make multiple trips to the parking lot to retrieve a set of backpacks. Place the backpacks at each of the exits. The backpacks contain a timer, thermite, and propane tanks. Set the timers for simultaneous ignition of the thermite. The thermite (easily made from iron and aluminum) will melt a hole in the propane tank and ignite the propane. The theater patrons are trapped in a fiercely burning room. If the fire doesn’t get them the smoke inhalation and/or mass panic will.
Using easily available materials the murderer could have been a mile or ten away when the event happened and may have never been caught. When using a gun the odds of them getting caught are much greater and they are much more likely to be stopped before they run out of victims.
People that care about the victims should be glad we have guns in this country and encourage more sane and law abiding people to carry them almost wherever they go. It gives the crazy and the stupid an easy path to being caught and/or stopped before they can do the maximum damage.
If you like your eyes and are a shooter you need to read this post:
Non-ballistic eye protection is fine for keeping relatively slow-moving objects away from your face. Empty cases ejected from a firearm, dirt kicked up by muzzle blast, etc. For faster-moving projectiles such as ricocheted bullets, you need high quality, tested eye pro. I would personally prefer eyewear with a single piece lens for any activity where my face might be struck by small, fast-moving objects.
There are lots of tables and video of the test results. I would have liked to have seen more brands tested but I wouldn’t have wanted to pay for even the selection they did test.
To the people at LuckyGunner.com, good job guys.
give them 1 day to turn in the guns, then anyone caught with one would be shot on site.
Answerer 1
July 13, 2012
In response to the question, “If you were in charge of gun control for your country what would you do?”
[And by the end of day two the police and military would have rounded up all the anti-gun people and have them hog-tied, sheared, deloused, and ready for deportation to North Korea.—Joe]
The Obama campaign is running a video ad that claims Romney of misquoting President Obama. The problem is that even in Obama’s ad, a few seconds later, Obama is shown saying exactly what Romney quoted him as saying.
Do they think we are incapable of remembering things that happened 30 seconds ago? Or do they think we are that mind boggling stupid?
I suspect the real answer is that they are suffering from cognitive distortion (CD). I’ve had occasion to read up on CD and some other mental health issues in the last few months and I think a good case can be made, in a more scientific manner than expressed by Michael Savage, that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. In fact it is a fairly well known and understood disorder. It just, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t been explicitly connected to liberalism.
The problem is there appears to be no cure. It’s not a chemical imbalance. It’s not something that can be treated with counseling or therapy. If you can’t completely avoid contact with them the best you can do is give them firm boundaries, deal with their outbursts of anger and irrational behavior, and try to keep them from hurting themselves or others.
Some day when I have lots of time I’m going to write up a post on the topic.
I didn’t know there was this much interest in the history of underwear:
A revolutionary discovery has hit the world of underwear: Women 600 years ago wore bras.
The University of Innsbruck said Wednesday that archeologists found four linen bras dating from the Middle Ages in an Austrian castle. Fashion experts describe the find as surprising because the bra was commonly thought to be little more than 100 years old as women abandoned the tight corset.
I have always wondered about the motivation for bras. I’ve always been skeptical of the claim that “it hurts to have them bouncing around unsupported all the time”. I can see that being an issue once a woman wore a bra for any length of time but the same claim would be made about your arm if you carried it in a sling for a few years.
If it were true unsupported breasts were painful even for women that had never worn a bra it would have been an evolutionary handicap 10’s or 100’s of thousands of years ago. Under those circumstances “Darwin” would have selected for breasts that met the nutritional needs of the young while not inhibiting mobility.
So I have always thought there must be some other evolutionary point to bras. Was it some sort of sexual attractant to change the shape and make a woman appear more youthful and/or healthy like red lipstick and other makeup? Or perhaps it could have been just the opposite; A means of suppressing visible clues as to the gender of potential victim in situations where the risk of assault was high.
And even more intriguing is that the latter hypothesis could mean that the invention and acceptability of the easily concealable firearm will reduce and/or remove the need for bras. We can only hope and keep teaching our women to be able to effectively defend themselves.
