Author Archives: Joe

Hit them hard

Posted on by

I have been thinking about what would be the best approach to the proposed ban on standard capacity magazines. The MSM is practically foaming at the mouth about this and it hasn’t died down after nearly two weeks.

On one hand I was tempted to just ignore it. There isn’t really enough political support for the ban and it probably is going to fail with all the other things occupying the attention of our lawmakers. I though perhaps we should be focused on things we should be on the offense about. Things like getting rid of the ATF sign-off and tax on suppressors, removing the “sporting use” restrictions, getting rid of some of the stupid import bans, and more constitutional carry. The best defense is a good offense, right?

But if we ignore them might they get enough momentum to get something passed? Should we be commenting on all the newspaper websites and blogs and putting effort into stopping this attack of theirs?

After consulting with some friends and thinking about it more I have decided we can and should play both defense and offense at the same time. It may be possible what the anti-freedom people think of as an opportunity for them can actually be turned into a win for us. I’m not just talking about stopping their attack. I’m talking about inflicting serious damage to their movement.

This Tucson shooting was an incredible morale booster for them. We can and should shame and demoralize them. They have given us an opportunity to expose their deceptions, stupidity, and bigotry. The proper attitude is required but I believe we can use their own actions to push them closer to political extinction.

What I propose is that we write Congress members and Senators and express with as concise and powerful a message as we can. Hit those that want to strip us of our rights hard enough they will stay down this time. If you have the time send a message to ALL Representatives and Senators. If not, at least send it to YOUR Representatives and Senators. We should use this same message on the web via comments wherever we find even half-hearted support for the proposed ban. This message should be sent as “letters to the editor” and used in opinion pieces via normal media outlets.

The following is my proposed message. Modify and use it as you see fit.

If Representative Gifford and 19 others had been run over by a drunk driver there wouldn’t be talk of banning alcohol or automobiles. This country once banned most alcoholic beverages. We suffered the consequences, learned from our mistake, and repealed the laws.

If six people outside a gay bar had been killed and 14 others wounded by a group of 30 homophobes there wouldn’t be talk of banning groups of people greater than 10. That would be a clear violation of the right to association guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Even if a dozen religious fanatics murdered thousands of people in coordinated attacks on our country no serious consideration would be given to banning their religion.

Tens of millions of innocent people have been murdered by students of Karl Marx but no one is advocating a ban on the possession of his books to prevent murderous tyrants.

If most violent crime were committed by people with black skin there wouldn’t be talk of “reasonable restriction” encroaching upon the 13th Amendment which prohibited slavery.

When the cops acquire evidence or a confession illegally, or when they fail to Mirandize somebody they arrest, we let the accused walk, even if he’s certainly guilty. If the guy who walked promptly kills somebody, that doesn’t lead us to reconsider the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. We blame the cops who screwed up the case. Innocent Americans have died because we maintain the rights of the accused.

In this country we have principles which we hold to even if the cost is sometimes great. We value freedom even when some people abuse that freedom. We hold individuals responsible for their actions not the group to which they belong or the freedom itself.

The proposed ban on magazines of greater than 10 rounds is a proven failure. The DOJ studies on the effects of the 1994 to 2004 ban on these magazines showed this. Even after nearly ten years the DOJ sponsored study concluded, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” We don’t need to relearn the lessons of prohibition, the war on drugs, and the 1994 “Assault Weapon” ban. We are better students of history than that.

The proposed ban would affect tens of millions of gun owners and ban 100s of millions of magazines. Nearly all police officers in this country carry magazines of greater than 10 rounds. These magazines are used in firearms used for self-defense, hunting, and numerous sports. Ask your local police officers if they carry magazines with capacities of 10 rounds or more. If they find them useful then so do the millions of others who use them for legitimate self-defense. These are not “high capacity magazines” that are being targeted. These are normal capacity magazines.

The proposed ban would apply not only apply to millions of handguns sold every year, the most popular rifles, but even some shotguns. These magazines more than satisfy the “common use” requirement for protection as outlined in the famous 2008 DC v. Heller Supreme Court case. To ban them would not only be pointless from a public safety perspective, it would be overturned by the courts, and subject this country to a long and divisive conflict when we need to focus on other issues of great importance.

Those advocating for the ban are either ignorant of the uselessness of it and how common by these devices are or know and don’t care. Actions advocated by ignorant people cannot be considered anything but foolish. Actions advocated by people who know they are pointless must have an ulterior motive.

People who claim the price of freedom is too high should try suggesting that to their friends and neighbors with dark colored skin or different religious beliefs before suggesting that to the 80 million gun owners in this country. The price we paid and continue to pay for freedom from slavery, religious tolerance, and the right to keep and bear arms was and is great but it is far less than the cost of not having those freedoms.

We have a name for ignorant people with an irrational hatred of people who they neither understand nor want to understand and persist in advocating those beliefs. It’s time we started using that name to describe them.

Just because we tolerate bigots doesn’t mean we approve of them or allow them to legislate their agenda. Don’t let the bigots who hate gun owners infect the rest of the country.

Update: Some minor changes were made upon the recommendations of several readers and advisors. Keep the suggestions coming! Thank you.

Update2: Taking the advice (which I think is sound in this case) of ubu52 I am doing some more editing. See below.

Cases where determined bad guys continued to fight after being shot more than ten times are very common. People who proposed private citizens self-defense is served with ammunition capacity limited to ten rounds need to read the literature and talk to self-defense trainers rather than believe what they see in the movies.

In the famous 1986 FBI Miami shootout eight trained FBI agents fired nearly 100 rounds to stop two bank robbers. One of the robbers continued to fight until hit 12 times. A 10 round restriction on magazine capacity will result in many needless deaths and injuries to innocent people confronted by attackers and unable to adequately defend themselves.

Even if we ignore the obvious need for full capacity magazines it is called a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.

If most violent crime were committed by people with black skin there wouldn’t be talk of “reasonable restriction” encroaching upon the 13th Amendment which prohibited slavery.

Tens of millions of innocent people have been murdered by students of Karl Marx but no one is advocating a ban on the possession of his books to prevent murderous tyrants.

Even when 19 religious fanatics murdered thousands of people in coordinated attacks on our country no serious consideration was given to banning their religion.

In this country we have principles which we hold to even if the cost is sometimes great. We value freedom even when some people abuse that freedom. We hold individuals responsible for their actions not the group to which they belong or the freedom itself.

The proposed ban on magazines of greater than 10 rounds is a proven failure. The DOJ studies on the effects of the 1994 to 2004 ban on these magazines showed this. Even after nearly ten years the DOJ sponsored study concluded, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” We don’t need to relearn the lessons of prohibition, the war on drugs, and the 1994 “Assault Weapon” ban. We are better students of history than that.

The proposed ban would affect tens of millions of gun owners and ban 100s of millions of magazines. Nearly all police officers in this country carry magazines of greater than 10 rounds. These magazines are used in firearms used for self-defense, hunting, and numerous sports. Ask your local police officers if they carry magazines with capacities of 10 rounds or more. If they find them useful then so do the millions of others who use them for legitimate self-defense. These are not “high capacity magazines” that are being targeted. These are normal capacity magazines.

The proposed ban would apply not only apply to millions of handguns sold every year, the most popular rifles, but even some shotguns. These magazines more than satisfy the “common use” requirement for protection as outlined in the famous 2008 DC v. Heller Supreme Court case. To ban them would not only be pointless from a public safety perspective, it would be overturned by the courts, and subject this country to a long and divisive conflict when we need to focus on other issues of great importance.

Those advocating for the ban are either ignorant of the uselessness of it and how common by these devices are or they know and don’t care. Actions advocated by ignorant people cannot be considered anything but foolish. Actions advocated by people who know they are pointless must have an ulterior motive.

People who claim the price of freedom is too high should try suggesting that to their friends and neighbors with dark colored skin or different religious beliefs before suggesting that to the 80 million gun owners in this country. The price we paid and continue to pay for freedom from slavery, religious tolerance, and the right to keep and bear arms was and is great but it is far less than the cost of not having those freedoms.

We have a name for ignorant people with an irrational hatred of people who they neither understand nor want to understand and persist in advocating those beliefs. It’s time we started using that name to describe them.

Just because we tolerate bigots doesn’t mean we approve of them or allow them to legislate their agenda. Don’t let the bigots who hate gun owners infect the rest of the country.

Update3: I left the message at www.WhiteHouse.gov. The site limits messages to 2500 characters. The version below comes in at 2492 characters.

Cases where determined bad guys continued to fight after being hit more than ten times are very common. People who proposed private citizens self-defense is served with ammunition capacity limited to ten rounds need to read the literature and talk to self-defense trainers rather than believe what they see in the movies.

In the famous 1986 FBI Miami shootout eight trained FBI agents fired nearly 100 rounds to stop two bank robbers. One of the robbers continued to fight until hit 12 times. A 10 round magazine capacity will result in many needless deaths and injuries to innocent people confronted by attackers and unable to adequately defend themselves.

Even if we ignore the obvious need for full capacity magazines it is called a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.

If most violent crime were committed by people with black skin there wouldn’t be talk of “reasonable restriction” encroaching upon the 13th Amendment which prohibited slavery.

Even when 19 religious fanatics murdered thousands of people in coordinated attacks on our country no serious consideration was given to banning their religion.

In this country we have principles which we hold to even if the cost is sometimes great. We value freedom even when some people abuse that freedom. We hold individuals responsible for their actions not the group to which they belong or the freedom itself.

The proposed ban on magazines of greater than 10 rounds is a proven failure. The DOJ studies on the effects of the 1994 to 2004 ban on these magazines showed this. Even after nearly ten years the DOJ sponsored study concluded, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” We don’t need to relearn the lessons of prohibition, the war on drugs, and the 1994 “Assault Weapon” ban. We are better students of history than that.

Those advocating for the ban are either ignorant of the uselessness of it and how common by these devices are or they know and don’t care. Actions advocated by ignorant people cannot be considered anything but foolish. Actions advocated by people who know they are pointless must have an ulterior motive.

We have a name for ignorant people with hatred of people who they neither understand nor want to understand and persist in advocating those beliefs. It’s time we started using that name to describe them.

Don’t let the bigots who hate gun owners infect the rest of the country.

Stupid this bad surely hurts

Posted on by

While I am seldom surprised at the level of stupidity I observe I do see depths being reached. Here is one from “darren.russell” who claims to be from the UK.

Being from the UK i cannot understand that Americans feel they have the need to own guns.
The only thing a gun is good for is to kill or maim.
I know that it is one of the amendments or something but wasn’t the original misquoted that people have the right to bear arms when it was really meant that the army had the right to bear arm to defend the country?

“The only thing a gun is good for is to kill or maim”? First off, even if that was true what is the problem with that? The police and the military use guns to “kill and maim” and very few people advocate removing guns from their collection of tools. And second, if the statement was true then that would mean that the roughly 100,000 rounds I have fired were almost all failures because only five of them succeeded in killing or maiming (I used two on a rattlesnake, one on a deer, and two more on a deer I hit with Barb’s Jeep).

And finally, the most stupid thought is that the Bill of Rights would need to include a section preserving the right of the army to bear arms to defend the country.

I have to wonder if the people in the UK would actually claim him as one of his own and if being this stupid hurts.

Quote of the day—Henry Louis Mencken

Posted on by

The typical lawmaker of today is a man devoid of principle—a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology, or cannibalism.

Henry Louis Mencken
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/mencken.htm
[And this is why people of principle are routinely disappointed and disgusted by lawmakers.

It was just this reason that we have politicians proposing new restrictions on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. The Tucson shooting was “the right pressure” to cause them to violate known and accepted principles in the Bill of Rights. What we must do is apply “the right pressure” in the other direction.

I’m working on a post that if applied correctly I believe will exert an equal and perhaps greater pressure in the other direction. It might not be ready until tomorrow so be patient.—Joe]

Quote of the day—BulletTrap

Posted on by

The sound of my vote is much softer than the sound of my rifle.

BulletTrap
Signature line on various forums.
[Keep in mind that many people don’t like loud noises. And remember “Silence is golden”.—Joe]

The importance of Glocks in the World of Guns

Posted on by

The following was written entirely by Leon Harris for publication on this blog.

You may have heard the recent news story about Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords.  She was shot (along with several other bystanders) while making a public appearance in Tucson just a few short weeks ago.  The gun in question: a Glock.  While many are quick to say that such a powerful handgun should be blacklisted on the American market, they are probably not aware of just how prevalent this gun is in our culture.  In fact, the Glock 9mm is one of the most popular handguns in circulation today, owned not only by private citizens, but considered the preferred firearm of police officers across the country.  There’s no denying that this gun has mass appeal, and when you look at the particulars, it’s easy to see why.

The company that makes this gun is located in Austria, but even gun enthusiasts that support locally-made products will likely find this firearm attractive.  Not only is the weapon semi-automatic (making it legal to own and a lot of fun to fire), it is also lightweight and extremely reliable.  Made from composite plastic, Glocks are much lighter and easier to handle than their competitors (although other features are similar to any number of comparable firearms).  However, this one outstanding innovation has helped to catapult them to the top of the heap.

It is for this reason that they are extremely popular with law enforcement.  For a long time, it seemed that being on the right side of the blue line meant playing a constant game of catch-up as the criminal element always seemed to possess bigger and better weapons.  When the Glock hit the U.S. market in the ‘80s, it was like a godsend for police officers.  They seized upon the weapon as an equalizing force to confront gangs and other criminals that had been one step ahead before.  And it performed admirably, so much so that nearly two-thirds of any given police force carries them as a personal sidearm to this day.

Of course, the law wasn’t the only element to recognize the allure of the Glock.  Gun-toting law-breakers also claim this firearm as a weapon of choice (although most criminals won’t hesitate to supplement their arsenal with fully automatic guns and other illegal weapons).  And of course, the average man about town might also house such a weapon in his home for both protection and recreational purposes.  After being shot, Gabrielle Giffords herself admitted to owning a Glock, claiming to be “a pretty good shot”.

Although Glocks have garnered some media attention for their lethal force and rapid action, making them only one of many controversial firearms, they remain one of the most popular guns in the world today.  And the fact that they are endorsed by law enforcement officials bodes well for their continued circulation, despite the fact that a few criminals and nut-jobs are trying to ruin it for everyone.  As handguns go, you can’t get much better than the Glock.  They have, in many ways, revolutionized how we look at firearms, and to suggest that they be sent to legal detention because of a few heavily publicized incidents is not only unacceptable, but likely an impossible scenario.

Leon Harris writes for Silencer Co where you can find a variety of the highest quality suppressors tailored to your needs.

Quote of the day—Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy

Posted on by

If the president doesn’t get involved then it’s not going to convince anybody in Congress or the Senate.

Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy
January 19, 2011
Empty Barrel
[I would have thought it would depend more on Congresswoman Giffords who was shot. But who am I to know? Obama could give it some momentum too but my read of things is that he will stay out of it.—Joe]

California ammo law is invalidated!

Posted on by

Nice!

In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.

Update: Of course what they will attempt to do is to require all ammunition sales to be registered. But that will be a tougher battle than the one they fought to get just handgun ammunition registration through the legislature. And if it passes it will be vigorously fought in the courts too.

Quote of the day—Thomas Paine

Posted on by

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.

Thomas Paine
[The individual that values his the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment must also protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment or everyone will discover the liberty secured by the 13th Amendment has been lost as well.

See also the nearly identical concept expressed by Alan Dershowitz.—Joe]

Compromise with THIS

Posted on by

I keep falling into the same mindset as many other people and perhaps even more so than most. When someone asks a question I take it at face value and try to answer the question. Then, if necessary, I attempt to explain the answer to them. In many cases this is completely the wrong approach. In the case of a confrontation with an anti-gun person if you are answering their questions you are losing.

Today Say Uncle hinted pretty strongly at the proper approach to suggestions magazine capacity should be restricted but I think that thought should be amplified.

When someone suggests the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms should be restricted the response should be a look of extreme incredulity and informing them that they should not act on that impulse. Such acts are illegal. People acting on them can and should be arrested and sent to prison. The same goes for politicians.

This is no different than someone proposing the right to freedom of association should be limited to those groups that pass a sporting purpose test and be restricted to ten people or less. After all you only need five people for a basketball team and ten people can make a baseball team. If you want to associate in groups larger than if can only mean you want to form an angry mob and riot. You don’t need to associate in larger groups than ten, right?

Now that the cards are on the table tell me we can find common ground and compromise on something “reasonable” for both sides.

Some of those same people are also advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment. I find this just as abhorrent as I would a suggestion of repealing the 13th Amendment. We fought a civil war over that issue and I would expect no less over the attempted repeal of the Second Amendment.

My position is that people advocating such actions apparently can’t handle freedom and should therefore seek the security of some place that allows them only that which they really need. Can’t we set up a charity to subsidize one-way tickets to North Korea for them? That is a compromise I could agree with.

Quote of the day—dustydog

Posted on by

The vast majority of lefties had no opinion on 30 round magazines until last week. If they had an opinion from a previous newscycle, it was long forgotten. It is now received wisdom that high capacity mags are evil. Whatever you say or write, you haven’t changed the underlying presumption that you are arguing for something evil. You aren’t allowed to challenge the conclusion that your gun is evil.

As a metaphor, I’m against eating live puppies. If someone were to argue about their right to eat live puppies, I wouldn’t begin to pay attention to their arguments; I’d only be interested in learning more as a means to stopping them. If I found out they had a powerful lobby devoted to enjoying the agony of the puppies as the are slowly eaten, I’d assume the worse motives and conspiracies. I can’t imagine any logic or arguments that would sway me from my presupposition. In the minds of the Left, wanting responsibility for oneself (including self-defense, which includes your gun and mag) is like torturing puppies.

dustydog
January 17, 2011
Comment to  Random thought of the day
[Other than the minor correction of changing “high capacity” to “normal” or “standard” I don’t have anything to add.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

I wonder why there is such a disconnect with people’s thought processes.


The shooter in Tucson had mental problems which may have been made worse by heavy marijuana use. Some people wanting to “do something” started talking about banning the magazines of greater than 10 rounds. How many of those same people never even thought that such a ban would be no more effective than the ban on marijuana that same guy was using? How could they possibly think that such a ban would be effective when the ban on marijuana is not effective?


People apparently don’t realize that “bans” don’t eliminate something. They only provide a legal means of punishment for those that get caught with the banned item. The banned object or substance does not cease to exist. As near as I can tell people imagine they will be transported into some sort of fantasy land where the banned item dematerializes or something.


Once you realize that bans only provide for punishment of those that get caught you can see that bans to “prevent” some greater society harm are unlikely to be successful. The “ban” of murder precludes the proposed ban of more than 10 round magazines of being of any significant use. The only consequence is that it makes murder “double ungood” or some such thing.


This leads me to conclude that in proposing 10 round magazine limits the Brady Campaign leaders must think possession of normal magazine capacities are on the same order of magnitude of evil as murder. If the possession is insignificant on the “evil scale” the additional law is of no benefit because the “ban” on murder has the issue covered. But they don’t think the ban on murder is sufficient, hence the evil inherent in possession normal magazines must be some significant proportion of the evil inherent in murder.


Either that or they just don’t have the thought processes to think clearly.

A simple physics problem

Posted on by

Given: Ry uses his AR-15 to shoot 1200 grams of Boomerite contained in a coffee creamer container. On top of the coffee creamer container is a 60 pound steel contraption for crushing charcoal briquettes and launching the dust into the air. Joe takes a video using his Windows Phone 7 phone and puts it up on YouTube*. In the video you can see the explosion occurred at 11.18 seconds into the video. The charcoal dispenser hits the ground at 14.48 seconds into the video. Afterward Ry measures the horizontal distance the charcoal dispenser traveled. It is 13 yards. Assume the acceleration of gravity on this planet at this location is 32.174 ft/sec2.


Problem: Ignoring air resistance and assuming the initial acceleration was for all practical purposes instantaneous answer the following questions:



  1. How high into the air did the charcoal dispenser go?
  2. At the instant after the detonation what were the horizontal and vertical velocity vectors of the charcoal dispenser?
  3. At the instant after the detonation what was the total velocity vector of the charcoal dispenser?
  4. What was the USPSA power factor of the charcoal dispenser at launch?
  5. If used at an USPSA match does the charcoal dispenser “make Major” for both pistol and rifle competition?

Be sure to use consistent units during the calculations and give the results in English units.


Solution:



  1. The total time in the air is 3.3 seconds. One half of the time is spent going up and the other half is spent going down. The equation of motion for an object dropped in a gravitational field is:

    d = 1/2 a t2

    Where d is the distance traveled in feet, a is the acceleration of the gravitational field, and t is the time in seconds.

    The maximum height can be expressed as:

    d = (32.174/2 ft/sec2) (3.3 sec/2)2
    d = (16.087 ft/sec2)(1.65 sec)2
    d = (16.087 ft/sec2)(2.7225 sec2)
    d = 43.8 ft
  2. The equation of motion for an object traveling at a constant speed is:

    d = v t

    Where d is the distance traveled, v is the velocity, and t is the time.

    This can be used to give us the initial horizontal velocity component.

    Since the total time in the air was 3.3 seconds and the horizontal distance traveled was 13 yards the velocity can be solved for in the following equation:

    13 yards = (v)(3.3 sec)
    v = (13 yards)/(3.3 sec)
    v = 3.94 yards/sec

    or expressed in the more common feet per second:

    v = (3 ft/yard)(3.94 yards/sec)
    v = 11.8 ft/sec

    The vertical component at launch is the same as the final vertical velocity at the moment of impact. The equation of velocity with respect to time is:

    v = a t

    Where v is the final velocity, a is acceleration, and t is the time.

    Hence the initial vertical velocity is:

    v = (32.174 ft/sec2)(3.3/2 sec)
    v = (32.174 ft/sec2)(1.65 sec)
    v = 53.1 ft/sec
  3. The total velocity is the square root of the sum of the squares of the horizontal and vertical velocities. Hence the total velocity at the instant after detonation was:

    v = SQRT((11.8 ft/sec)2 + (53.1 ft/sec)2)
    v = 54.4 ft/sec
  4. IPSC Power Factor is expressed by the following equations

    PF = (m v)/1000

    Where m is the mass of the bullet in grains and v is the velocity of the bullet in ft/sec.

    There are 7000 grains in one pound. Hence the mass of the “bullet” is (7000)(60) or 420,000 grains.

    Hence the IPSC Power Factor is:

    PF = (420,000)(54.4)/1000
    PF = 22,848
  5. The minimum USPSA power factor required to make major with a pistol is 165. For rifle it is 320. Since 22,848 is greater than both 165 and 320 the answer is “Yes”.


* The YouTube video:



Quote of the day—Marion Hammer

Posted on by

Every time you try to give people back their Second Amendment rights people go ballistic because you’re infringing on their turf. But they’re the ones infringing on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Marion Hammer
January 15, 2011
NRA’s lobbyist in Florida
From Florida’s solution to violence: MORE GUNS!!
[In the present context the people who “go ballistic” are a police chief and a prosecutor.

One should always be suspicious when government attempts to expand it’s powers. And one should be uncompromising when they desire to expand their powers at the expense of a specific enumerated right guaranteed by the Constitution.

If government officials complain when illegally obtained power is returned to the people to whom it belongs they should be given all the respect given to someone who complains when the stolen property they possessed is returned to it’s rightful owner.—Joe]

Confetti and charcoal dispensing with Boomerite

Posted on by

Ry, Barron, and I went to the Boomershoot site today to do some more tests.

Apparently I left the glitter at my bunker in the Seattle area but we had the confetti and as we passed through Kendrick we picked up some charcoal briquettes on a whim.

The confetti was totally uninteresting:

Dispensing charcoal briquettes was more interesting:

The briquettes are far cheaper than chalk and no special packaging is required. The use of charcoal briquettes for Boomershoot 2011 is now the official plan of record.

We did manage to destroy the dispenser. In hindsight it was a stupid thing we did. There is a construction flaw in the current dispensers. The hole in the center should have the armor plate welded to the one inch plate all around the hole as instead of simply at the edges. We managed to get enough pressure build up between the two plates that we broke some of the welds. It can be repaired and I will do so the next time I go back to the farm.

Quote of the day–Ry Jones

Posted on by

I doubt the people committing crimes in D.C. are reading the SCOTUS blog.


Ry Jones
January 15, 2011
[This was during a discussion of the falling crime rate in D.C.


I was skeptical that very much of the decline could be attributed to the Heller decision since so few people actually have been able to legally obtain firearms in D.C. since the decision. Ry was supporting my skepticism from a different angle.–Joe]

Quote of the day—Violence Policy Center

Posted on by

As household gun ownership has dropped dramatically since the early 1970s and America’s youth turn away from guns, the SHOT Show is proof of the gun industry’s embrace of increased lethality to shore up its fading market and declining sales.

The SHOT Show will bring together hundreds of vendors – including Glock, a manufacturer of pistols used in multiple mass shootings, which markets its handguns as “pocket rockets” – and tens of thousands of attendees, as lawmakers in Congress are expected to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines like those used in last week’s mass shooting in Arizona. The show comes at a time that most of the major gun manufacturers are experiencing a significant decline in demand and falling sales.

Violence Policy Center
January 13, 2011
SHOT Show an Example of a Politically Powerful Industry Desperate to Hide Its Decline
[“Fading market and declining sales”? At first reading of this you might question what planet they are on since 2009 and 2010 were banner years in terms of gun sales.

If you read a little closer you might notice the sentence doesn’t even make sense. “SHOT Show is proof of the gun industry’s embrace of increased lethality”? Where did that come from? By reading further you discover that apparently the presence of Glock is the key to reaching that conclusion.

Reading VPC material is like listening to the rantings of the mentally ill. At first it sort of makes sense but as you look closer you find the most basic assumptions are wrong and the conclusions reached don’t even follow from the flawed assumptions.

Is anyone proposing legislation for mental health tests prior to posting on the Internet? Not that I think it should be done but I could see a case being made for that with the VPC as one of the prime examples.—Joe]

Boomershoot family photos

Posted on by

I finally got access to the pictures Oleg took at Boomershoot 2010 (thanks Barron). Here are some of my family (minus son James who was in the Seattle area that weekend) that I was most interested in getting.

Keep in mind these are just the raw images without any special post processing that brings them up to the quality product standards you normally would expect from Oleg. The tweaks were by me, a non professional, which consisted only of resizing and in the case of the first picture some slight cropping.

As is usual, click on the picture for a higher resolution version.

_MG_4207Web2010
This was me just prior to the shooters meeting and fireball demo on Sunday.

_MG_4311Web2010
This is wife Barbara and I about halfway through the main event on Sunday.
Notice how tolerant she is of me even though I have been grouchy for days? That is simply amazing someone would put up with that.
It probably helped that she received the special edition Boomershoot jacket she is wearing from Boomershooters Fred and Bruce the night before.

_MG_4315Web2010
Daughters Kim and Xenia.

_MG_4312Web2010
Daughter Kim, wife Barbara, me, and daughter Xenia.

Rules are for other people

Posted on by

I am firmly of the opinion there are far too many laws, regulations, and rules in this country. I suspect the world would be a better place if about 99% of them did not exist. I wouldn’t even be surprise if 50% of them could go away and no one would even notice they were gone. That said, I still obey nearly all of them I am aware of. I pay all my taxes. I try to stay within the speed limit and store my explosives as per the advice the ATF gives me.

I can’t tell you how many times Barb and I have grumbled to each other that we must be stupid for following the rules or for not trying to scam the system in some way. She sees so many people in her work at the hospital who get free medical care at taxpayer expense. Many are drug (I include alcohol an tobacco as drugs) addicts or just find ways to get on disability when they actually could be productive members of society. Many of them demand to stay longer in the hospital and be taken care of. They refuse to get out of bed or to do the exercises that would help them become strong enough to walk on their own. They even show up drunk and unable to stand well enough to do their therapy without hurting themselves or their therapist. Your, and my, tax dollars are paying for all of this. And of course they all are firm believers in a government that takes care of them. They are lefties.

They should either follow the letter and the spirit of the rules that give them a free ride or they should be removed from the welfare system.

It turns out it’s not just the “little people” that ignore the rules and get away with abusing the system. A case in point is Arianna Huffington:

Huffington refused to turn off her Blackberry just before takeoff from Washington D.C. on a flight bound for New York City.  Huffington continued to use the phone during and after take-off which greatly antagonized a nearby fellow passenger.   Huffington kept the phone on throughout the flight even though the passenger, Ellis Bellodof, repeatedly asked her to turn it off.  Eventually, the two “caused a disturbance” so loud that security was called immediately after the plane landed at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, and both Huffington and Belledof were escorted off the plane for questioning.  Both were released without charges.

Now, I think the rule against using your cell phone on the plane is pretty stupid. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence cell phone usage interferes with the planes electronics. And all of the recent airplane travel I have been on required that I not just put my phone into “Airplane mode” but actually turn the phone off. The only valid reason for that final rule is to make enforcement by the flight attendants a little bit easier. It’s far easier to see that a phone is off (it isn’t being used) than to verify the phone is in “Airplane mode”.

Despite thinking the rule is stupid I just frown a little bit and I turn off my phone when first asked to so. But this upper crust lefty, Arianna Huffington, does not obey this rule. That pisses me off. The airlines should either get rid of the rule (preferred) or refuse her service on their planes.

But what I think the bigger lesson here is that there are a lot of people on the left who make rules for “other people” yet don’t follow the rules that are supposed to apply to them. Case in point, legislators that advocate for restrictions on firearms. The Second Amendment is a “rule” they refuse to acknowledge. At the Federal level the enumerated powers of the constitution is ignored. Do you remember what Nancy Pelosi said when asked where the constitution gave the Federal government the power to implement the takeover of health care? She said, “Are you serious?” That pisses me off.

They are rule makers. If they don’t obey the rules how can they expect others to obey them except at the point of a gun? Is that why they want to remove guns from the public? Because the only reason they will obey the rules that supposedly apply to them is at the point of a gun?

Legislators, of any political persuasion, that ignore the highest rule of the land should either change the rules, leave the service of this country, or be removed from service—preferably in chains.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

I wonder what the response would be if you asked an advocate for a maximum magazine capacity of 10 rounds how they arrived at that number.

Is that some sort of optimal capacity for maximum public safety? If not then what is that number? If so then where is the data that demonstrates it is optimal?

A new toy!

Posted on by

I just left a comment on a new gun control blog. Here is my comment to their latest post:

Baldr, I question your goal, “My goal, and the goal of Gun Control in general, is to reduce gun violence…”

Had you said, “criminal violence” then I would be with you. But the way it is worded your goal could conceivably be completely achieved (zero injuries inflicted with a firearm) yet have a murder rate that is 100 times greater than what we have now.

That is why the “gun deaths” data you presented is of almost no interest to me. I didn’t dig into it to make certain but I suspect it includes “gun deaths” that were justifiable homicide by the police and private citizens protecting innocent life. It probably also includes suicides.

It is because of these issues there is Just One Question that needs to be answered before I can see any point in having a discussion about placing restrictions on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. That question is: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons? If you can’t successfully answer that question affirmatively then I don’t see any point in having a discussion.