Quote of the day–Carneades

There is absolutely no criterion for truth. For reason, senses, ideas, or whatever else may exist are all deceptive.

Even if such criterion were at hand, it could not stand apart from the feelings which sense impressions produce. It is the faculty of feeling that distinguishes the living creature from inanimate things. By means of that feeling, the living creature becomes perceptive of both itself and the external world. There is no sensation or perception of anything unless the sense is irritated, agitated, or perturbed. When an object is indicated, then the senses become irritated and somewhat disturbed. It is impossible that there be an unperturbed presentation of external things.

The subject is more or less persuaded by the image it perceives. The strength of that persuasion depends on the disposition of the subject and on the degree of irritation produced by the image. It is not the distinctness of the image that constitutes its credibility.

The only way we can ever obtain certitude is by the difficult process of examination. We cannot be satisfied with evidence that is incomplete and only probable. Our certitude is always a precarious one. Science relies on probability, not on certitude.

Carneades
Greek philosopher 214-129 B.C.
The Fallacy of the Criterion of Truth
[As near as I can tell a very high percentage of the population subscribe to the first sentence and then their subscription ran out or they turned on the T.V. to have their brains sucked dry. My discussions with many anti-gun people provides a large base of evidence to support this conclusion.

A vastly smaller percentage thought through things enough to arrive at the conclusion articulated in the first paragraph.

It is but a very small percentage of the population that make the difficult journey to the finish the last paragraph. And even those that do sometimes still conclude that because science is not certain it must be wrong and hence their certainty of something at odds with the evidence is just as valid as the science on the same topic which says else is very probable.

As son James learned, people will literally say and believe, “Because something is irrational doesn’t mean you don’t have to believe in it.”

This insistence on certainty of belief in the absence of, or in spite of, evidence drives politics and enables politicians to herd the masses like cattle. I wish there were a cure for this terrible disease. But I fear that at best there will, someday, be an adjustment in the percentages when Darwin laughs as billions struggle and fail to learn the lesson before they inevitably fail the pop-quiz of some global catastrophe.–Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

History has shown it was not just Present Clinton, it’s now obvious it is Democrats in general, that want to suppress free speech. It just so happens that at this moment the NRA has enough power to resist for a while.

Quote of the day–Andrew Rothman

If there’s an unequivocal opposite to growing up around guns it’s being raised by New York Jews.

I grew up believing guns were bad. That’s what my parents taught me. But they also taught me to read. That was their first mistake.

Andrew Rothman
June 3, 2010
Testing Minnesota’s gun show loophole
[Being able to read isn’t a necessary or sufficient condition to arrive at the conclusion that private firearms ownership is a net benefit to society but it certainly does help.

I agree that ignorance, willful as well as unintentional, are huge problems which enable and create anti-freedom people. But I think reading comprehension and the ability and willingness to determine truth from falsity are the critical items.–Joe]

Dealing with the devil

As you probably already know the NRA made a deal with the devil:

On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives
pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet
certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a
result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in
final consideration of the House bill.

The “certain criteria” are:

  1. The organization must have more than 1 million members
  2. The organization must have been in existence for more than 15 years
  3. The organization must have members in all 50 states
  4. The organization must raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations

Some say this set of criteria can be met by only one organization–the NRA.

There are lots of ways to read this and as good as the NRA is at backroom deals and reading the political winds I still wonder if they got this one right.

If you read things from the NRA point of view in the literal sense it comes out something like this:

The NRA is looking out for the best interests of it’s members and the organization. If the proposed law does not apply to the NRA then the NRA has no business spending political capital on it.

If you read things from the point of view of the devil it comes out something like this:

Get what we can now and we’ll get the rest later. Once it passes those poor souls in Hell will scream so loudly about the NRA exemption that we will collect the souls of the NRA on our next pass through town without any difficulty.

In this scenario the devil wins and goes home with our souls. It may have been delayed for a few months or a year, but the devil wins.

If the NRA is good, really good, they can play with the devil and win the game for everyone without even trying. That goes something like this:

The NRA gets it’s exemption then either with or without some back channel urging by the NRA the exemption stirs up such a storm that the entire bill becomes impossibly toxic with or without the exemption.

I know the NRA is good. But are they good enough to take a 1000 yard shot with the proper windage such that the political winds push the bullet into the X-ring once it has left the barrel?

I hope the NRA knows what they are doing because they are playing a game where (mixing my metaphors because there has been a Charlie Daniels earworm of The Devil Went Down to Georgia going on for the last twenty minutes) the devil deals the cards. And it’s more than just a fiddle of gold against a soul at stake.

Do people really believe this?

From the Rachel Maddow show transcript (H/T to Warthog’s Rachel Maddow compares NRA mission to Prohibition):

[T]he NRA is focused like a laser-guided scope on gun rights. They want people
on the terrorist watch list to have un-impinged gun rights.

They want
felons to have gun rights. They want crazy people to have gun rights. If you
want an assault rifle with a magazine that holds enough ammo to take out a whole
American school yard or a 50-caliber gun that shoots a bullet as big as a carrot
and can take down a pretty good-sized aircraft, if you want the right to carry
weapons like that and you don’t want a background check and you want to wear
those weapons to your neighborhood bar, the NRA has got your cold, dead back.

What is the basis for saying the NRA wants felons and crazy people to have gun rights? Has she even read the NRA web site? Or does she get all her NRA policy information via the rants of lunatics? Or is she one of those lunatics? I have to conclude the later because she implies the NRA is ineffective in it’s goals, should change it’s strategy, and furthermore goes on to compare the NRA to the prohibition movement.

What?

The VPC would be the analog to the prohibition movement. The NRA is closer to the NAACP (in the early days) or the ACLU.

Gun cartoon of the day

The anti-gun people frequently claim this but that is grossly inaccurate and is actually nothing but projection.

Look at the responses to Just One Question, “What color is orange? True or false?” What kind of a response is that? It is totally nonsensical and people claim it is some sort of brilliant insight.

Or MikeB302000 who recently proposed the VPC report on the low “gun
deaths” in Hawaii, while ignoring violent crime and murder in general,
was an adequate response to my question. I responded in his comments by
pointing out the question is concerned with safety, not the total
number of deaths (including justifiable and praiseworthy homicide)
inflicted with the use of a firearm. This sort of thing has been
pointed out to him so many times and his ass handed to him so many times
that this morning when he came back with another post claiming my
response made him wonder if my response was “an elaborate con job” it
reminded me of a joke:

A man goes hunting with his buddies, although he’d never been hunting and barely knew how to hold a rifle.

On the first day out of camp he’s walking through the woods and he comes upon a big ass bear. “Great!” he thinks to himself. But he’s so excited and nervous that when he raises his gun and fires he misses the bear by 10 feet. The bear looks at him and stands up, and shockingly speaks. “Excuse me, but you just shot at me and missed. I’m afraid I’m going to have to rip your throat out.” says the bear as he takes out his claws and ambles towards our hero.

“You’re a talking bear! Wow! I’m really sorry for shooting at you, please don’t kill me.” The bear looks at him and says, “You know I should kill you, but I’ll tell you what, if you perform oral sex on me I’ll let you live.”

Now our hero was torn between life and death, so he chose the only option he could. That night, as he sat in camp, he heard the bear walking around jawing about how he got a human to give him a mouth hug.

So the next morning he woke up knowing that he had to kill the talking bear. He walked through the woods, and suddenly came upon the bear. This time he was very tense, the adrenalin coursing through his veins. He shot, and once again missed.

The bear looked up, stood up and walked over to him. “This is the second day you’ve tried to kill me. I’m afraid I’m going to have to tear your throat out.” said the bear in a kindly fashion.

“Please Mr. Bear, I didn’t mean to do it, please don’t kill me.” our hero whimpered. “Tell you what, you bend over and let me get Gentle Ben on your buttocks and I’ll let you live.” said the bear.

Having no choice our hero did as instructed. Later on that night as he drank himself silly in camp he heard the bear walking around chanting, “Now this human took it bear style. Once you go black bear you never go back bear.”

Thus the next morning our man woke up and knew only one thing; he had to kill the talking bear. So once again he trod out to the woods. Low and behold he came upon the bear sitting on a log. He was terrified this time, more so than before. He raised his gun and BANG!!! He missed.

The bear stood up and walked slowly over to him. And when he spoke he seemed to have gotten a French accent. “Ah, it is you again.” At this point he took out a cigarette and began smoking. “But alas, do not fear me. For I think we both realize that you are not here for the hunting.”

And so it is with MikeB302000. He is so incompetent with his apparent goal of being an advocate for gun restrictions there are only three possibilities that I can think of to explain his actions:

  1. He really is that stupid.
  2. He is on our side and wants to make anti-gun people look stupid.
  3. He is a troll that enjoys sucking up our time.

But although sticking it to him a few times is entertaining there comes a point when getting your rocks off at his expense just isn’t that much fun and is a waste of time. (Again) I have reached that point in time.

Quote of the day–Charlton Heston

A war put off is not a war avoided.

Charlton Heston
[I don’t know the context of when this was said but it probably wasn’t meant to be the one I am thinking of.

For decades there have been gun owners who were willing to “give them what they wanted” so they could keep their hunting rifles or shotguns or some other firearm not currently under attack by the bigots. Every concession with the enemies of freedom emboldened them. Every inch of territory they owned gave them more legitimacy. Just look at California, Chicago, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York City, and Washington D.C.

How many lives have been lost or ruined with the rampant crime enabled by disarming those victims? And the enablers make no effort to hide the fact they are nothing but petty tyrants ready to shoot those that question their decisions. They should have been slapped down 70+ years ago and countless lives, billions of dollars, and millions of man hours could have been saved.

I understand that sometimes you have to retreat and give them a
little ground so that you don’t lose the entire war but we must do our best to prepare the
ground so that reclaiming it will be easier when we return with
greater forces. With the “assault weapon” ban of 1994 we did just that.
Our side insisted the legislation include funding on studies of the effectiveness of the ban and an expiration date. Both of those helped reclaim the territory in later years.

The battle over NFA34 was lost without much resistance put up by gun owners and gun organizations. We were completely unprepared–condition white.

With the political climate of 1968 the battle was tough, our preparedness was pathetic, and we lost. We must remember these losses and never let ourselves be unprepared. We now have the initiative and we should not drop it. The battle in the courts will last decades just as the battle in the legislatures has lasted decades.

But always remember putting off the battle does not mean that it is avoided. It may require a strategic and temporary retreat but just as there is no compromise between someone intent on raping or killing you there is no compromising with the enemies of liberty.–Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

As if violent crime is not a concern to us or, as some anti-gun people claim, pro-gun people actually support criminal use of guns.

Quote of the day–Christopher King

America is a collection of stupid people. You will not try to reason with them. You will resort to the most shameless non sequiters, strawman arguments, appeals to vanity, and whatever all else in shaping public opinion. Here is my argument against gun control:

  • It is a statistical fact that only beautiful people own guns. You will never in a million years see an ugly person with a gun. Ergo, if you see a person with a gun, that person is attractive.


  • Gun owners have more sex than non-gun owners.

  • Practicing with guns weekly results in fewer per capita incidents of male pattern baldness. It’s the lead in the bullets, maybe.

  • Those in favor of gun control are little peepee pants pansies. In a state of nature, they would be among the first to be killed or eaten. And you don’t want to be eaten, do you?

  • Gun owners’ girlfriends have bigger tits and put out more readily. This is a publicly known fact.

Christopher King
June 13, 2010

I’m done trying to have rational debates. I will now resort to pure emotion

[In case someone tries to use me as an case in point to refute the FACTS (proof by vigorous assertion) above–I didn’t start shooting regularly until after I went bald. Other than that I could be used as proof of the above.–Joe]

The email

Robb Allen forwarded me the email about the Brady Campaign that contributed to a lot of the blog traffic about the Brady Campaign membership list. It is an exact copy of this.

Wife Barbara Scott especially likes this picture of Paul Helmke which can be found in the email:

In our family we refer to this type of humor as “Scott Family humor”.

You never know

Sometimes it is a surprise when I post something I think is fairly ordinary and it gets a lot of traffic.

Other times when I make a post I know it’s going to get some links and more traffic than most. A year or so ago I had decided that if I wanted to take the time (typically it’s a two to four hour investment so it’s not something I have time to do everyday) I can write a high traffic post at will.

When I stumbled across the Brady Campaign membership list on sale a couple weeks ago I thought I had something really big but the response was a little disappointing. Yes, I got more traffic than normal with about 1000 visits that day instead of the normal 500 to 700 but it wasn’t quite as what I had expected. [Shrug] Okay, so it’s not as interesting as I thought it was.

That was two weeks ago.

Friday afternoon Detroit Gun Rights Examiner Rob Reed made a post about it, Kurt Hofmann followed up with one of his own and things exploded. Numerous forums and email lists copied them, a few more blogs picked it up, and my Sitemeter entry page has looked like this for nearly two days:

  1 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  2 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  3 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
  4 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  5 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  6 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  7 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  8 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  9 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 10 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 11 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 12 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 13 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 14 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 15 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 16 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 17 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 18 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 19 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 20 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 21 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 22 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 23 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 24 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 25 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/10/
 26 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 27 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 28 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 29 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 30 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 31 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 32 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 33 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 34 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 35 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2005/12/05/boomershoot-and-survivalists/
 36 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 37 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 38 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 39 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 40 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 41 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 42 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 43 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 44 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 45 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 46 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 47 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 48 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 49 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 50 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 51 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 52 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 53 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 54 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 55 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 56 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 57 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 58 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 59 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 60 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 61 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 62 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 63 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 64 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 65 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 66 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 67 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 68 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 69 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/06/10/anti-gun-people-lying-with-statistics/
 70 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 71 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 72 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 73 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 74 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 75 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 76 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 77 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 78 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/06/12/cops-respond-to-brady-campaign-troubles/
 79 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 80 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 81 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 82 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 83 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/08/
 84 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 85 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 86 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 87 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 88 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 89 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 90 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 91 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 92 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 93 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/01/07/firing-up-the-propaganda-machine/
 94 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 95 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 96 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 97 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 98 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 99 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 100 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/

My visitor and page counts:

Notice that on the 18th of last month when I originally made the post there was a little bump but not that much. Compare that to yesterday and what continues today.

I think the difference is because I had a rather narrow perspective on the significance of the data I found. Things clicked for Reed and Hofmann.

Gun cartoon of the day

This assumes so many facts not in evidence that it almost doesn’t deserve a response. I would start with the assumption the dominate use of guns is criminal and leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

Quote of the day–Neal Knox

Handgun Control Inc. often quotes from Cruikshank, which says, “the bearing of arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution.” They never quote the next sentence from that decision: “Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

The Court stated in Cruikshank that since the First and Second amendments limited only the Congress they did not prohibit the Ku Klux Klan from conspiring with local officials to prevent newly freed black slaves from holding political meetings or having guns. It boggles the mind to hear so-called “Liberals” proudly cite the Cruikshank decision.

Neal Knox
October 9, 1987
The Gun Rights War, page 74.
[In 1992 or 1993 I received a mailing from HCI with this quote in the letter.* That letter sealed my relationship with them. It was like remembering where you were when you found out President Kennedy had been shot.**

I was in the bathroom next to the kitchen in our house in Moscow Idaho. I remember setting the letter down on the counter next to the washbasin. I was stunned. Had the Supreme court really said the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says? I was very shaken by this. HCI wouldn’t put something that profound in writing if it weren’t true. They couldn’t. It would be devastating to their cause if it was found out they had lied. Right?

I don’t remember how I checked up on it. But within a few days I had discovered what Knox had reported in 1987. HCI hadn’t really flat out lied, they “just” didn’t tell the whole truth. It had to be deliberate misinformation on their part. It was, as Knox said, the very next sentence which refuted their point.

This infuriated me. I have not forgiven them. Changing their name to “The Brady Campaign” did not help. That they used Jim Brady’s injury as a justification for a law that would not have prevented, in even the most optimistic scenarios, the tragic shooting of Jim Brady and President Reagan reinforced my opinion of them as deliberate deceivers.

In 2004 then Brady President Michael D. Barnes claimed they had about “a half million” members. Then a couple weeks ago I found out they only have about 50,000 members and that is only if you want to include those that haven’t donated any money in over two years. If you measure “membership” as most people do then the real numbers are about 28K or less.

When they said they would not share supporter names with unaffiliated groups they lied.

There is a reason I have frequently called their lawyer “Half-Truth Henigan“.

When I asked Paul Helmke why he was not concerned with the total violence rather than just “gun violence” it was because I wanted to point out to the rest of the audience that Helmke was, as usual, selectively reporting data that would propagate his half-truth.

Deception has been a part of their organization for decades. I believe deception has become institutionalized in their organization. It is a part of their culture. Perhaps they believe the end justifies the means. I don’t really know why. I just know that to this day they still deceive. And it isn’t all that important to know why. It’s just important that we destroy them politically and as an institution. They may have good intentions but Hell is paved with good intentions and their political goals enable evil.

When Brady people hear or read my name or links to my blog posts in relation to news that hurts them it I want them to know something. I want them to know a major part of the reason I am on their case is because I have never gotten over them sending out a deliberate half-truth in that letter nearly 20 years ago.


*Yes, it’s possible that they still have my name and address in their list of “members” even though I have never donated any money to them. I did send them my address requesting they keep me informed…

**Okay, so that doesn’t resonate with all that many people anymore. How about like remembering where you were when you found out the twin towers where hit by an airplane?–Joe]

Cops respond to Brady Campaign troubles

A forum “for Cops by Cops” responds to the news about Brady Campaign troubles pretty much like what I would expect. HA HA!

Sensible control measures

From the Washington Post:

Many legal analysts predict that Chicago’s handgun ban is done for. While proponents of gun control may feel discouraged, the actual impact could be minimal, depending on what regulations the court allows Chicago to put on the books instead. New York City, for example, makes it quite difficult for private citizens to obtain handguns through an expensive and drawn-out permitting process that falls short of an outright ban.

Local officials from Dodge City to Chicago have understood that some regulation of firearms within city limits is in the public’s interest, and that regulation and law enforcement are important complements in the effort to reduce gun violence. Even before the repeal of D.C.’s handgun ban, the city’s police reestablished a gun-recovery unit and focused on seizing illegal firearms. The city’s homicide rate has been relatively flat the past several years. If the court decides that Chicago must follow D.C’s lead in getting rid of its handgun ban, we can only hope that it leaves the door open for sensible control measures.

It’s not explicitly stated but the implication seems pretty clear to me that they think NYC making it “quite difficult for private citizens to obtain handguns through an expensive and drawn-out permitting process” are “sensible control measures”.

The courts should no more allow “sensible control measures” for gun owners than they did Jim Crow Laws.

This should be a clue

Someone is asking:

Where can I find “positive” ATF videos?

Raw or not, “positive” videos seem nearly impossible to find for the ATF (and even for FEMA,
for that matter).

You have to have positive acts by the ATF before you can have positive videos of it.

Whose business is it?

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California says, “It’s none of government’s flippin’ business what guns I own, or why I own them.”

Of course the Brady Campaign and their supporters disagree. From the same article we find the claim
“It will make your community safer, and make officers safer,” by Juliet Leftwich of Legal Community Against Violence, which co-sponsored the bill.

Is that all it takes? A claim of increased safety? We know there is no data supporting a claim that weapons restrictions of any type have ever made the average person safer. But suppose there was. Would that be sufficient grounds for tracking and licensing people that engage in activities that sometimes result in injury or even death?

If that were true then government paperwork could be justified for every instance of sexual intercourse. Do you want to live in a world like that?

Just think of the benefits! It would make it easier for health officials to track down all carriers of sexual transmitted diseases. Shouldn’t we make it easier for government officials?

If those that advocate government tracking of gun and ammunition were consistent they would advocate the same for sexual intercourse. But of course registration and tracking of guns can no more reduce violent crime than requiring paperwork for each act of sexual intercourse would help apprehend rapists. And more importantly because we have a specifically enumerated right to keep and bear arms it is even less of their business to track our exercise of that right than it is to track our sexual activities.

You can make money without doing evil

Google is famously known for saying you can make money without doing evil. Aside from my belief this statement betrays an unspoken belief that most earning of money is inherently evil, good intentions are not enough.

What were they were thinking?

The authority revealed that as well as collecting SSID information (the
network’s name) and MAC addresses (the number given to Wi-Fi devices such as a
router), Google had also been collecting payload data such as emails or web page
content being viewed.

“The independent audit of the Google system shows that the system used for
the Wi-Fi collection intentionally separated out unencrypted content (payload
data) of communications and systematically wrote this data to hard drives,” said
Simon Davis from Privacy International.

Google said the error came after a piece of experimental code written in 2006
was included in the software used by its Street View cars by mistake.

However, Davis says Google’s explanation “doesn’t add up”.

“This is complex code and it must have been given a budget and been overseen.
Google has asserted that all its projects are rigorously checked,” said
Davies.

“It goes to the heart of a systematic failure of management and of duty of
care.”

I’m not going to say it could never happen at Microsoft but if my experience is any indication it would be a very, very safe bet.

I wrote the original code for an internal application used on Windows Mobile 6.x that has collected millions of SSIDs and BSSIDs (also known as MAC addresses). My officemate wrote the code that gathers the same information on Windows Phone 7. I know what we had to go through in terms of review by peers, lawyers, and management. Privacy was of paramount importance. There was never even a suggestion that connection traffic should be considered “fair game”. The information of the type Google is in trouble for storing on hard drives never even gets into RAM let alone is processed enough to hit persistent storage.

I’m not in a position to say that Google had evil intent but I have trouble imagining what they thought they could do with code that stored information gathered in that way that would not be considered “evil” or at least extremely unethical.

Gun cartoon of the day

People on both sides of the issue sometimes attribute evil intent to their opponents. While the evidence is overwhelming that evil intent exists in some cases (see also here) I am of the opinion the majority of the anti-gun people have good intentions. They typically are ignorant and/or have difficulty distinguishing between truth and falsity. This doesn’t mean that their actions don’t enable or cause evil results. Hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

It could be that my sample is biased but examples where anti-gun people acknowledge pro-gun people have good intentions appear to be non-existent. Typically they attribute NRA actions as benefiting the gun manufactures and it being “all about the money”. But many examples, such as the cartoon above, exist which claim the NRA markets guns to kids and works to arm criminals.

This systematic and persistent attribution of evil intent to all gun owners and organizations is no different than attributing evil intent to blacks who demand repeal of curfew laws and laws prohibiting socializing between the races or gays who wish to adopt children.

The VPC does not hide it’s belief that gun owners and gun organizations are evil. But the Brady Campaign does not do this. They are much more moderate in their rhetoric and probably as result of this are a much larger organization. They are aware that extremism in pursuit of their goals is a loosing strategy. While I find it telling that extremism in defense of liberty does not suffer from the same handicap that is a topic for another post (perhaps Lyle would like to take this up).

I can’t help but think that asking anti-gun people what they think the motivation is for pro-gun people would be revealing. I suspect asking them this question would cause them to confront beliefs which are clearly not supported by the evidence.

Quote of the day–Sheriff Richard I. Mack

Any right or freedom not worth fighting for is but a temporary privilege.

Sheriff Richard I. Mack
From My Cold Dead Fingers–Why America Needs Guns, Third Edition (“Final Chapter”), page 212.
[Not only must it be worth fighting for but people must actually go out and do the fighting and voting.–Joe]