Quote of the day–Alastair Reid

Looking for temporary Edens is a perpetual lure certainly not confined to writers, who sooner or later discover that the islands of their existence are, in truth, the tops of their desks.

Alastair Reid
Whereabouts–Notes on Being a Foreigner, Page 73.
[The same applies to socialists, progressives, and liberals (but I repeat myself). Anti-gun people also attempt to set sail for their imaginary island oblivious to or deliberately ignoring the fact that so many similar voyages ended in genocide. And those voyages that have not yet ended in genocide did not find Eden or even a better place than the one they left. I wouldn’t mind it so much if they didn’t insist, at the point of a gun, that others join them on their own version of Voyage of the Damned.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Colin Moore

…[S]uch ideas have merit in Hillary’s world, where even little victories lead ever closer to the big prize: no guns, just government.

Colin Moore
January 21, 2010
Ban by baby steps
[As Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton has influence on the gun ban treaty and will probably do whatever is possible to push us closer to her version of utopia–a world without private ownership of arms.

This part of the reason I push so hard on the bigotry and “specific enumerated right” issue. We need to putting pressure on foreign governments that infringe their citizens rights as well. Canada, England, and Australia would be first on my list. It’s a human right and we should be sending the appropriate messages when any government infringes on this right. And part of that message should be Col. Cooper’s view on the topic.–Joe]

New ad appearing

I have approved a new ad which should be showing up in the right column soon. It is the first “adult” ad I have received. It’s probably not safe for work. And unfortunately it’s too late for Christmas or I might have ordered something as a present for Barb–even if they are in the U.K.

Oh well, Valentines day and her birthday are coming up soon.

Geeks and guns

I almost made the alt-text from XKCDs comic this morning (hover your mouse over the picture at that link) the QOTD.

Here is the comic itself:

[The Geeks With Guns website is here.]

New shooter report

I had been putting Ian off all week. Last week I told him Monday evening should work. I had forgotten about the previously made plans to have dinner with James and Kelsey.

I didn’t even offer Tuesday because that was the evening Barb was showing up from Idaho.

Tentative plans were made for Wednesday but those were scrapped when some tentative plans for dinner with some friends I expected to fall through didn’t.

Thursday I loaded up my car with over a thousand rounds of ammo, three handguns, a rifle, and some other gear. I parked off across the street (Microsoft doesn’t allow guns on campus) and that evening Ian and I went to Wades where I have a lifetime membership.

I went over the NRA three safety rules and he asked some questions about the NRA. The answers amounted to a brief history of the NRA. and NRA-ILA.

As he filled out the new shooter paperwork I paid the guest fee and purchased a USPSA practice target.

I started him out on a Ruger Mark II at about three yards:

Then an Olympic Arms AR-15 at seven yards:

Then S&W .22 revolver at three yards:

Then my STI Eagle 5.2 chambered in .40 S&W at three yards:

This is his single action revolver results (the double action results were just as good):

But he did well with .40 S&W too (the smaller holes are from the AR-15 at seven yards):

This is at seven yards with the .40 S&W:

We picked up the brass and as we drove to his bus stop I explained the economics and custom load benefits of reloading. It was during the drive he said the words I made my QOTD.

Another day, another oppressed minority from another country liberated (see also representatives from China, Canada, India, and Taiwan).

Quote of the day–Ian

I’ve been America three weeks and I’ve shot four different guns. This is so cool!

Ian
January 21, 2010
[Ian is from Toronto and is an intern at Microsoft. He said the above after going to the range, touching, and shooting a gun for the first time. Freedom is very cool.

Pictures to follow.–Joe]

What you don’t read in the MSM

The headline reads, “Groups rally for, against gun control in Va.” I kept looking in the article for how many were on each side. I’ve commented on this before, but the recap is short. In the past when I have been to protests and rallies the pro-gun people outnumber the anti-gun people up to 1000:1 and always at least 10:1. But the article didn’t say what the numbers were. It just said:

Later in the day, far fewer gun control supporters wrote the names of those killed or injured in gun violence on hearts made from construction paper and placed them into a basket before lying on the grass outside the Capitol for three minutes to signify the time it takes to purchase a gun.

A commenter gives us the answer:

2,400 v 24… For every one person against the bill of rights, there was 100 for it…

On a logarithmic scale that was about average.

One has to wonder why the votes in the legislatures don’t have similar ratios. The bigots/special interest groups apparently have pull far beyond their representation in the people at large. And it is the MSM failing to report the facts that help them get away with that.

A victory for free speech

I’m surprised. Very surprised. I am also pleased with this:

The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

The decision was a victory for a conservative advocacy group’s challenge to the campaign finance law as part of its efforts to broadcast and promote a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She later became President Barack Obama’s secretary of state.

The justices appeared at a special Thursday session to summarize the ruling and issued a total of five separate opinions exceeding 175 pages.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights. “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote.

New FFL in Pullman Washington

Pullman Washington is just over the border from Moscow Idaho. Moscow has numerous stores that sell guns and used to have a few dedicated gun shops. It’s down to one gun shop now but Pullman has zero stores that sell guns and only for a year or two had a gun shop. Who, Kevin I. says, “the city fathers chase him out”.

This makes it a bit of a hassle for Pullman and surrounding residents to buy a handgun. It is illegal to go next door to Moscow and directly buy a handgun from someone in Moscow. You need to transfer the gun across state lines via a FFL. In this case it means a trip to Spokane–75 miles away. Just one more stupid infringement on our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

But that recently changed. We now have a FFL in Pullman again.

Palouse Operational Supply is now in town and FFL transfer are only $25.00 ($20.00 for law enforcement, fire, and military). They also provide quotes on whatever toy and accessory you have an interest in and promise “You won’t find a better deal, period!” for some manufactures.

Quote of the day–Tam

Five gets you ten his new company has nothing to do with fruity “LDA” triggers.

It must have been physically painful to have been contractually obligated to pimp those things.

Tam
January 21, 2010
Comment to Todd Jarrett Leaving ParaOrdnance.
[Similar, but far less succinct and articulate, thoughts went through my head when I read the news.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Daniel Johnson

If gun people and libertarians want to reject the benefits of American society and live freely, independently and unfettered on their own, they should look for caves in Montana and, if they’re full up, Afghanistan probably has vacancies. They’ll definitely need their guns there.

Daniel Johnson
January 20, 2010
The Second Amendment Fantasy and How Americans Have Been Taken In
[I find it interesting that Johnson and his ilk cling to their beliefs after all nine of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices found that the right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right. And then they want us to leave when the facts don’t suit them. But then, what else can you expect from bigots?–Joe]

New Jersey gun advertisements are regulated

If you don’t use the proper words in an advertisment for a gun New Jersey you are a “disorderly person”.

If I were somehow persuaded to sell guns to the victims of New Jersey it would be on such a scale and for such purposes that it would go much beyond being a “disorderly person”. They would think of me as they did those that sold guns to the Indians 150 years ago.

Quote of the day–Thomas Carlyle

I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

Thomas Carlyle
[Nor do I.

However you will frequently read of the anti-gun people proclaiming with great satisfaction that such and such a poll shows “the people” want “assault weapons” banned or the “gun-show loophole” closed.

So what is it? Do they believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance?

I am quite sure that is not the case. We have direct evidence the anti-gun people deliberately prey on the collective ignorance of people. Like other con-artists their success depends on coming up with new scams with which to fool their victims as their old scams are exposed.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.

Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire
To M. le Riche, February 6, 1770
It was not Voltaire, but his biographer, S. G. Talentyre in The Friends of Voltaire, who originated the famous remark, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
From The Great Thoughts (link is to the 2nd Edition, mine is the 1st Edition–1985) compiled by George Seldes.
[I sometimes think of deleting a comment on my blog from someone too stupid to know how to determine truth from falsity. They may be so pig-headed as to continuing insisting the righteousness of their cause despite uncountable instances of them presented with overwhelming evidence their cause is at best ill-advised and I feel some frustration at their inability or refusal to follow even the simplest of logic trains. But then I think of what Voltaire said.

I wouldn’t directly give my life to enable him or her to continue pushing their agenda. Indirectly I suppose it is possible via my pursuit of liberty but that would be a side effect rather than in direct support of such an individual. I think I might consider looking the other way rather than risk my own life in defensive of theirs should I know harm to them was imminent.

I sometimes wonder if in a fight to the death if adhering to principles is a luxury only affordable when you are winning. Does the other side abandon their principles when they are loosing? Or do they adhere to them until the end? If so then perhaps those principles are best known by their examples of Reasoned Discoursetm (see also here and here). Is their insistence that you should be silenced or put to death a sign they have abandoned principles because of the hopelessness of their cause? Or is it insight into the true nature of their principles?

I don’t know for certain.

At least for now I exercise loyalty to my principles by not deleting their comments.–Joe]

U.N. and guns

NRA News video on the U.N. plans for gun control.

The destruction of those firearms I find as, or more, disturbing as I would the burning of books.

As I have said before I regard this as one of the largest threats to our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. And contrary to what some people say I don’t think the response by people will involve actively resisting. The first steps, should such a treaty get passed would be registration of firearms. I don’t think people would take up arms on a large scale to oppose this. It would be more like Canada where they, in a large part, ignored the law.

This would mean that ammo sales would go down, practice would go down, recruiting of new shooters would go down, and within a generation or two the game would be over. Registration must be vigorously opposed and defeated in the legislatures and in the courts. Should such a treaty passed the enforcement of the treaty must be resisted with all the enthusiasm you would any other law that violates my Jews In The Attic Test.

Quote of the day–Sean Flynn

What we’re looking for is good enough and on time. By short-circuiting the big questions and providing ready answers, religion makes decision-making fast. In this sense, a good, rigid ideology works the same way. Judgements can be made fast. Your OODA loop is tighter. Your observations are colored, but you can decide and act faster than someone who is weighing all the facts carefully and checking himself for bias. It’s sort of like why CoreWars was short-lived. It turned out that the winning strategy was to have a tight loop that shat all over memory at random.

Obviously there are limits to my argument. Components of Islam and Taoism stunted the development of science and later on put those cultures at an evolutionary disadvantage vs the West. It remains to be seen if the West has become too rational for its own good in the long term.

Sean Flynn
January 15, 2010
Comment to Environmentalism as a religion.
[With that bit of insight the comment thread completely stopped. I think everyone else realized they were out of their league.

Nice job Sean.–Joe]

Irrational fears

The anti-gun bigots sometimes accuse us of irrational fears. I can’t immediately think of any cases where there isn’t at least some truth to the fears expressed but I suppose the accusation could be valid in some cases.

However the anti-gun mind is overflowing with fears that are so numerous and totally lacking in a rational basis they are not only laughable but they are being slapped down in court about it:

When Tarrant County College denied a student the right to stage an empty holster protest in April 2008 at the South Campus, officials feared someone would use the event to bring a weapon on campus.

“There was certainly the expectation that someone was going to show up with a gun in a holster,” TCC interim Chancellor Erma Johnson Hadley said under cross examination during a trial in federal court Thursday.

School officials had the concern even though they had no evidence that anyone would, and U.S. District Court Judge Terry Means told her — when she couldn’t provide any proof of why she thought someone planned to do so — that free speech cannot be limited on the basis of an “undifferentiated fear.”

“I can’t see any tangible basis for this fear,” Means said.

I am sometimes not nearly so gentle with bigots like this. I insist they inhabit the real world and the leave their lunatic ravings at the funny farm. I say something like, “Facts. It’s what reality is made of. I suggest you check it out.”

Quote of the day–Oscar Wilde

People fashion their God after their own understanding. They make their God first and worship him afterwards.

Oscar Wide
From Hesketh Pearson, Oscar Wilde, His Life and Wit (1946) via The Great Thoughts (link is to the 2nd Edition, mine is the 1st Edition–1985) compiled by George Seldes.
[Although the list is essentially without limit my favorite examples are socialism, environmentalism, and gun control.–Joe]

Environmentalism as a religion

Via IM from son James we have a philosophy professor explaining how environmentalism is a substitute for more traditional religions:

Feeling unworthy is still a large part of Western religious culture, but many people, especially in multicultural urban centers, are less religious. There are still those who believe that God is watching them and judging them, so their feelings of guilt and moral indignation are couched in the traditional theological furniture. But increasing numbers, in the middle and upper classes, identify themselves as being secular or perhaps “spiritual” rather than religious.

Now the secular world still has to make sense out of its own invisible, psychological drama—in particular, its feelings of guilt and indignation. Environmentalism, as a substitute for religion, has come to the rescue. Nietzsche’s argument about an ideal God and guilt can be replicated in a new form: We need a belief in a pristine environment because we need to be cruel to ourselves as inferior beings, and we need that because we have these aggressive instincts that cannot be let out.

Instead of religious sins plaguing our conscience, we now have the transgressions of leaving the water running, leaving the lights on, failing to recycle, and using plastic grocery bags instead of paper. In addition, the righteous pleasures of being more orthodox than your neighbor (in this case being more green) can still be had—the new heresies include failure to compost, or refusal to go organic. Vitriol that used to be reserved for Satan can now be discharged against evil corporate chief executives and drivers of gas-guzzling vehicles. Apocalyptic fear-mongering previously took the shape of repent or burn in hell, but now it is recycle or burn in the ozone hole. In fact, it is interesting the way environmentalism takes on the apocalyptic aspects of the traditional religious narrative. The idea that the end is nigh is quite central to traditional Christianity—it is a jolting wake-up call to get on the righteous path. And we find many environmentalists in a similarly earnest panic about climate change and global warming. There are also high priests of the new religion, with Al Gore (“the Goracle”) playing an especially prophetic role.

We even find parallels in environmentalism of the most extreme, self-flagellating forms of religious guilt. Nietzsche claims that religion has fostered guilt to such neurotic levels that some people feel culpable and apologetic about their very existence. Compare this with extreme conservationists who want to sacrifice themselves for trees and whales. And teachers, like myself, will attest to significant numbers of their students who feel that their cats or whatever are equal to human beings. And not only are members of the next generation egalitarian about all life, but they often feel positively awful about the way that their species has corrupted and defiled the whole beautiful symphony of nature. The planet, they feel, would be better off without us. We are not worthy. In this extreme form, one does not seek to reduce one’s carbon footprint so much as eliminate one’s very being.

It appears many people have a religious gene. They are, in essence, programmed to feel as they do toward “something greater than themselves”. As science made the unknown more knowable and more under the control of man it reduced the domain of possibility and probability of god(s) controlling people’s lives. And people had to have a substitute. This professor proposes environmentalism fulfills this need for many people.

I would like to suggest that an all powerful state fulfills that need for far too many other people–socialism can be thought of as a religion. It is a belief in the goodness of something without, or in spite of, evidence. Compare that to traditional religious faith.

This has serious implications for society and even the entire human race. If we are condemned to believe in things contrary to the facts how can we make the best decisions for ourselves let alone justify the forcing of others to adhere to the will of the majority?

Quote of the day–John Bolton

The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.

There’s never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what’s legal and what’s not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there’s no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda.

After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.

John Bolton
Former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations
Quoted by J.D. Longstreet January 15, 2009 in The UN To Take US Guns?
[I don’t know if this is a real threat or not. My initial inclination is that the current Senate would refuse to ratify it. But I just don’t know for certain.

Long term I do fear this sort of approach to gun control because it requires fewer people to agree to it. Just the President and 2/3s of the Senate. But how would that work if the treaty said “You must register and track all guns” but the House of Representatives refused to pass a law requiring that? How could a treaty be enforced against individual citizens without U.S. legal code defining the offenses and the punishments?

Would the U.N. send in troops to enforce it? If so I know some people who refer to this sort of situation as having unlimited license to hunt “blue helmeted elk”.–Joe]