Author Archives: Joe

Backroom deals

Posted on by

What if people had been talking about passing a law putting curfew on “people of color” being out in public at night? After all with the darker skin color it only makes sense that they could take advantage of that to commit crimes under the cover of darkness. That seems like a “reasonable restriction” that should prevent crime doesn’t it?

Furthermore when the bigoted politicians get voted (and shouted) down in public over it they decide to meet with the KKK and the Aryan Nations to plan their campaign for next time. Political leaders of the opposition, the ACLU, and the NAACP show up for the meeting and are barred at the door from attending the meeting. Then they hold a press conference and block any opposing people from attending.

What do you suppose the response in the mainstream media would be?

Now imagine it’s gun owner rights that are being plotted against and it’s the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the NRA, and National Shooting Sports Foundation instead of the ACLU and NAACP being blocked at the door.

Now what do you suppose the response in the mainstream media would be?

You got it. You’ll only hear about it via new media:

Rumor has it

Posted on by

There are some people speculating that Seattle Mayor Nickels is going to quietly walk away from the gun ban on city property he has been talking about for the last year:



Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels might be having second thoughts about moving forward with his controversial “dangerous weapons” ban. The executive order would effectively prohibit the possession of firearms on most city-owned properties. The ban has naturally drawn the criticism of Second Amendment rights groups and also Attorney General Rob McKenna, who has stated that it violates state preemption statutes.


In March, we wrote that the Mayor’s office was still planning on following through with the ban, with it taking effect “sometime in May”.


…


“They have a dead-bang loser in court and they know we were going to sue,” Gottlieb challenged. “The Mayor talks a good game but he hasn’t put his cards on the table yet.”


Although puzzled by the inaction, Gottlieb theorized that the Mayor could be seeking a middle ground out of the situtation.


“I have a feeling we won’t see this executive order,” Gottlieb predicted.


Nickels is going to do some public speaking to a group that I am a part of in the near future. If I get the chance I’m going to ask him about it.

Quote of the day–Wilhelm Reich

Posted on by

The fact that political ideologies are tangible realities is not a proof of their vitally necessary character. The bubonic plague was an extraordinarily powerful social reality, but no one would have regarded it as vitally necessary.


Wilhelm Reich
[I’m thinking of dominate political ideologies of Democrats and Republicans. Extraordinarily powerful social realities with the utility of the bubonic plague. That sounds about right.


The major political parties appear to have no principles or underlying philosophy. As near as I can tell they are merely coalitions of people in desire of fame/power/money. Political ideologies based on consistent philosophies such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party are for the most part unable to achieve power. This is in part because they are consistent philosophies which makes them less willing to compromise.


I sometimes fantasize of creating a political system that makes such coalitions of zero or negative value but have been unsuccessful of anything approaching something feasible. I keep coming back to enumerated powers such that the coalitions can’t exceed certain boundaries. We tried that once and look at what we have now. There needs to be a “Fourth Branch of Government” or something that does nothing but permanently nullify laws and remove politicians who voted for them from government if something like 10% of the members think the law violates the constitution.–Joe]

No respect

Posted on by

I decided to tell James Kelly what I really thought of him and his attitude toward gun ownership. My latest comment (which may or may not make it through moderation):



James, you need to look at the actual numbers of lives saved versus lives lost because of the “mass legal gun ownership”. You do a fine job of expressing your opinion but not backing them up with facts. Which is the entire point of Just One Question-which you still have not answered. You have come up with plausible hypotheses as to why it might be that firearms restrictions in the U.K. have not improved public safety but you have no numbers which show that it has improved public safety there or anywhere else.


Until you can give us numbers you have nothing but opinions. And until you have numbers to back them up you are no different than someone ranting about how terrible it is that Jews, blacks, or homosexuals are “spoiling the neighborhood”.


And not to worry, I would never knowing accept an invitation to a dinner party with someone that advocated the infringement of such a basic human right anymore than I would socialize with someone that owned slaves or supported laws that imprisoned homosexuals merely because of their sexual orientation.

Give women guns

Posted on by

Via an email from Mike B. I found out about this article in the NY Times. Once you get over the cringe factor of the improper grip of the gun that has me wanting to find a box of band-aids just from looking at the picture you find an anti-gun person proposing an interesting experiment:



I propose curbing gun violence not by further restricting the availability of guns but by expanding and reorienting it. Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.


Never mind all the facts he gets wrong like “men would still be forbidden” (emphasis mine), his belief in the existence of “safe guns”, etc. I find it exceedingly interesting that an admitted anti-gun advocate is willing to consider experimental data in the formation of gun policy. And furthermore that he would suggest arming those that are more likely to be in need of arms. He seems to actually get the concept but just needs some more data to convince himself of the efficacy of the RKBA.


Of course such an experiment would be illegal in forbidding men to be armed and perhaps requiring women to be armed (they are required to wear clothes in public so how is it different to require they be armed?). But it does bring up delightful thoughts of proposing such experiments to other anti-gun people to see how they handle such a curve ball thrown at them.

Quote of the day–Reverend Sydney Smith

Posted on by

When a man is a fool, in England we only trust him with the immortal concerns of human beings.


Reverend Sydney Smith
From the book I Wish I’d Said That! by Nick Harris which gives more background:



In the good/bad old days, a man’s eldest son inherited his estate, another son went into the army — and the dunce went into the Church.


[Perhaps that should now be “When a main is a fool, in the U.S. we only trust him with writing editorials.”


I’m reminded of this because of this dunce who says, “This writer grew up on a farm, enjoying hunting for ducks, geese and pheasants, and in adulthood, shot deer while a pastor in Spearfish.” I don’t intend to tar all pastors and it appears this guy is no longer a pastor anyway. Perhaps he had trouble with comprehension of the Bible as well as the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller.


More available from Jeff, Robb, Say Uncle, and Sebastian.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Thomas Jefferson

Posted on by

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.


Thomas Jefferson
[One might reasonably conclude that the bailout of the automobile and banking industries is evidence that this principle has been forgotten in the years since Jefferson help found this nations government. But then what do I know? I’m not the constitutional law professor who actually respects the constitution like President Obama.–Joe


Update October 28, 2012: This is a bogus quote. Thoreau said essentially this if you want to quote someone famous on this topic.]

Gun Blogger Rendezvous IV breaking news

Posted on by

Alan Gura will be attending.


That’s the equivalent of having someone like Stevie Nicks showing up at my high school prom! And like my high school prom, I won’t be attending GBR IV. [Heavy sigh]

Vicious Circle

Posted on by

I listened to all (I only had time for half of #7 which I had previously heard) the Vicious Circle podcasts on my way to/from Idaho this weekend. The most common topic is guns with some porn and technology discussions thrown in. My kind of stuff!


With very little structure, mediocre production quality, and a fair amount of rambling it’s never going to win any awards. But I enjoyed it. It certainly was much better than merely listening to road noise.


In some episodes (especially #8, We be hating) it sort of reminded me of gossipy Jr. High girls whispering to each other about someone else behind their back. And then there was another than made perhaps a few too many “short jokes” for me to be entirely comfortable with it (and I’m not short). But there wasn’t really anything I hadn’t said in private conversations before. But I wouldn’t make those sort of conversations public.


I’ll be adding more to my Zune as they come out for further entertainment while on the road.





Full disclosure:


#7, Boomershoot 2009, was very favorable about Boomershoot. Late in #5 a favorable mention of somethings I have said appears to be at least partial inspiration for episode #6. I think there was another favorable mention or two of me in some of the episodes as well.


I don’t believe these significantly affected my opinion of the podcasts but I thought you should know they might have.

Is that all it takes?

Posted on by

My jaw dropped after reading this:



What started out as a report of a man drunk and passed out in his car at a Franklin restaurant early Saturday morning led to federal agents searching a storage facility.



Officers received a call at 4 a.m. of a man passed out at the Steak n Shake on Carothers Parkway. Police arrested the man, Timothy Tyndall, and found a gun, ammunition and marijuana in his car.



While he was being questioned by authorities, Tyndall said he had chemicals stored at a facility that were capable of making hydrogen gas, a highly flammable substance.


Officers raided Tyndall’s storage unit in Cool Springs and found half a dozen containers of chemicals. Agents with the ATF and FBI examined the chemicals and found they were not capable of exploding.


Having the chemicals capable of making hydrogen gas is that all it takes to get “raided”?


If your home has water and electricity then you too have the capability of making hydrogen gas.


When you can get a judge to sign off on a search warrant when given evidence someone has the capability of making hydrogen gas the 4th Amendment is completely, totally, without meaning–as opposed to the minor speed bump that is now.

Trying to get ignored again

Posted on by

James Kelly is at it again with this:

Another tragedy? Not to worry.
An absolutely heartbreaking story on CNN about a three-year-old girl who accidentally shot her two-year-old brother. In the past, I would have instantly jumped to naive and inappropriate conclusions about this event, viewing it as a fairly clear-cut example of a totally avoidable death that could not possibly have occurred without the lax gun laws in America. However, thanks to my recent long-overdue education on these matters, I now realise that having lots and lots of deadly weapons around doesn’t cost lives, it saves them. If you feel that this story appears to contradict that statistically proven fact, you need to bear in mind the following factors –
1) Guns are mere tools, and are no more dangerous than any other inanimate object. If the girl had not accidentally killed her brother with a gun, she would simply have done so with any other tool that happened to be to hand.
2) Legal gun owners have no problem keeping their weapons safe and secure, and out of the hands of children or other vulnerable or dangerous people. This is something that ignorant European liberals simply do not understand. Therefore, this tragic incident is either a figment of your imagination or not statistically significant.
3) You are either far too stupid, or far too stubborn, to understand the arguments. There is overwhelming statistical evidence to prove this is the case. It’s too complex to go into in detail here, but suffice to say it has something to do with the Tottenham Outrage of 1909, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and some chap you’ve never heard of called Colin Greenwood.
Enlightenment is a wonderful thing.

 

I responded with a comment that apparently is being blocked. When I pressed the “Post Comment” button I received a message of “Your request could not be processed. Please try again.” I tried changing some of the HTML but it still wouldn’t post.

Oh well, I’ll post it here where it will get more views anyway:

If one wants to ignore the specific enumerated right guaranteed by our constitution for the moment and look merely at the cost/benefit ratio I’m willing to do that.
James, you need to look at the actual numbers of lives saved versus lives lost because of the “mass legal gun ownership”. You do a fine job of expressing your opinion but not backing them up with facts. Which is the entire point of Just One Question. Which you still have not answered. You have come up with plausible hypotheses as to why it might be that firearms restrictions in the U.K. have not improved public safety but you have no numbers which show that it has improved public safety.
Until you can give us numbers you have nothing but opinions. And until you have numbers to back them up you are no different than someone ranting about how terrible it is that Jews, blacks, or homosexuals are “spoiling the neighborhood”.

I’m probably just going to get ignored by him again. But as Kevin says, it’s not because I hope to convince him. It’s because it might convince someone else.

Update: I apparently successfully added the following comment to his moderation queue:

I find it very telling that you are proud of your “gun death” rate but make no mention of your murder or violent crime rate.

Again, you avoid answering Just One Question.

When guns are banned

Posted on by

If bans actually worked and guns were not available you would see more of this (warning–it’s very graphic!).


How fast can you draw and fire a shot? How much distance can an attacker cover in the same amount of time?


In answer to the first question 1.5 seconds is a reasonable estimate for most people. 21 feet is the answer to the second. Draw your conclusions and modify your behaviors appropriately.

ATF approved gun bloggers

Posted on by

Did you know that some gun bloggers had to get ATF approval?


Yes, it’s true. Here is a picture of some of them.

Quote of the day–ErnestThing

Posted on by

Boomershoot ended as quickly as it began. It only felt like a few hours, but it was most of the day. I guess time flies when you’re blowing shit up.


ErnestThing
May 11, 2009
Boomershoot 2009
[Yeah, time does seem to fly during Boomershoot. I sometimes worry that people aren’t getting their money’s worth out of the event because it’s all over so fast. But people start leaving before I call the final ceasefire so I can’t be that much of a spoil sport.–Joe]

Waking up to reality

Posted on by

Just a few months ago Fred LeBrun was saying things like this (see also my QOTD by him):



For the first time since 1935, with an all-Democratic national government, we are in a position to finally institute some meaningful and sensible gun control measures that will help mightily in regaining our cities from gun terror, street by street. Gun control doesn’t have to be a dirty word.


The centerpiece has to be a national identification system for handguns. A computerized system that would be accessible to all law enforcement agencies, and that would standardize the requirements for handgun ownership coast to coast. I am not suggesting anything radical in the slightest. In essence, it would be the system we have here in New York taken nationally, only with less waiting time for handgun permits.


Keep in mind that that “the system we have here in New York” is one of registration. And now he is saying:



The latest case in point is the absurd attempt by a few members of the Albany County Legislature to pass a local law requiring the registration of all ammunition sold in the county, and the recording of all the guns using the ammunition. Not just ammunition for handguns, which is already controlled by existing state law, but all ammunition for shotguns and rifles. This would be a radical departure for Albany County, and New York in general, which do not register or require a permit for these long guns.

Justifiably, this was seen as an awkward local attempt at backdoor gun registration, a hot button issue for gun rights advocates. They rallied fiercely against it, and vowed to work against the re-election of those who support it.


…


The proposed law itself was an ill-considered attempt that did more harm than good. It was deeply flawed from the onset and only managed to irritate a lot of people who would probably have gone along with public safety measures aimed at street crime.


Perhaps he is waking up to the reality of the RKBA as a specific enumerated right. The government can no more be trusted with a registration list of guns and/or gun owners than they can with a registration list of blacks, Jews, or homosexuals.

Bing

Posted on by

Full disclosure: I work for Microsoft but not in Search.


I know MS has been spending a lot of money attempting to catch up to Google as a search tool. A year or so ago I attended a few internal meetings and saw data that showed objective tests placing search results above Yahoo! and nearly as good as Google. I expect the results are at least on par with Google by now, but still MS wasn’t getting the traffic anywhere close to that of Google.


It appears MS has decided that search quality wasn’t a deciding factor. Yes, the branding of “Live Search” sucked. “Bing”, to this non-marketing expert, appears to be much better. And I hope that will help. But what they are doing is much, much more than just rebranding it. Check out this video. It’s a decision engine, not just a search engine.


Coming soon: Bing.

Quote of the day–Evelyn Logan

Posted on by

ALWAYS take at least one knife to a gunfight, just in case you run out of spare mags.


Evelyn Logan
5/28/2009
From the email list NRAInstructorsRKBA.
[Good point. You don’t have to reload a knife. But as I heard Greg Hamilton once say, “If I run out of ammo there will be lots of unused guns and ammo on the ground for me to pick up.”–Joe]

Seattle Library rules on firearms

Posted on by

I received this just today which is too late for attending their hearing or sending in comments but via an email from Mike B. we have this:



Category A (Library Specific Violation)


…


Possession, except by law enforcement officers, of a firearm on Library property (with a valid permit),


…


Category E (Serious Violation Toward Person(s) or Property)


…


Possession, except by law enforcement officers, of a firearm on Library property (no valid permit).


So what they are saying is that even though the State has said local governments may not regulate firearm possession the city library is going to do it anyway. They recognize the existence of carry permits but will not honor them.


It sounds to me like it is time for a lawsuit. Email to appropriate people is in the works.

Quote of the day–Fred Woodworth

Posted on by

If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also.


Fred Woodworth
[I think Woodworth overlooks some fundamental issues with things like his opposition to profit in economic relationships and ownership to raw land but I think he makes some valid points about the non-utility of government.–Joe]

Another Czar–bzar

Posted on by

I thought we appropriately articulated our opinion of czars in America on April 19, 1775. And the last Czar and his family were permanently removed from power with extreme prejudice on July 17, 1918. So why is it that our government is creating new czars? I would think we have had enough of them in this world. But apparently our government doesn’t see it that way because tomorrow President Obama is expected to announce still another czar:



President Obama is expected to announce Friday the creation of the position of cyber czar, a person who will coordinate the nation’s efforts to protect government and private computer systems from hackers, criminal gangs, terrorists and spies, people familiar with the plan said Thursday.


The czar will report to both the national security adviser and the head of the National Economic Council, the sources said.


Obama will not name anyone Friday to the post because the selection process is ongoing, they said.


In addition, the White House will release a 40-page report that sets broad goals for combating cyber intrusions, but does not spell out in detail how to do so, said the sources, who would not agree to be identified because the report has not been released.


Several years ago I was asked to comment on some preliminary Homeland Security plans for the Feds to “protect the Internet”. As one might imagine they were just the opposite of what I thought should be done. I gave them my feedback as politely as I could while still making my points and my boss said he passed it on up the chain with his blessing.


I don’t know if they have come up with something having better alignment with reality by now. We will have to see what the “40-page report” says. But just the fact that the Feds want to extend their reach into still another area where they don’t have any Constitutionally granted powers when they are so deeply in debt they can’t pay for all the stuff they already messing up does not bode well.


Update: The document is now available. A quick scan doesn’t reveal any of the stuff I disapproved of a few years back. But it is a very high level document without many details that can be addressed. And, of course, frequently “the devil is in the details”. What I did find a little odd was the frequent use of the phrase “State, local, and tribal governments” (emphasis added). There were 12 instances of the use of “tribal”. Is it usual to include tribal governments in such documents? And it makes me wonder…could I set up my own tribe and tribal government? I need to look into that sometime. I own land that is on an indian reservation (Boomershoot is held on indian reservation land as well).