Last night on his radio program, Dennis Prager said we need to “hold [Republicans’] feet to the fire”.
No doubt he’ll be hearing from the Secret Service any second.
Category Archives: Crap For Brains
Anti Gun Americans Will Flip
In an e-mail from Oleg Volk;
“Fetishizing the gun…
“American antis will flip at this animation series…”
Yup.
Combating the Mindset
A radio news report this morning said there have been three accidental shootings in Latah County recently. One of them happened when a guy was “cleaning a loaded pistol”. Yeah, right.
We know about these accidents, why? Because when the injured went to the hospital for their minor wounds, the people at the hospital call the cops.
I once shot myself right through the weak hand thumb. I went to the hospital to get the projectile extracted from my thumb. It was sticking out both ends of the wound. The thought of calling the cops, I am certain, never entered anyone’s mind at the hospital that day.
OK, class. This is a test. WHY did no one at the hospital think of calling the cops in my case, but they automatically called the cops in those other cases? Hint; why aren’t the cops typically called in on a lawnmower accident, a ladder accident, any time you cut your finger while chopping vegetables, cut your head running into a door, etc?
Answer; Because those accidents do not involve guns. We’ve all been conditioned. If it involves a firearm, call the cops. No thinking required. If it doesn’t involve a firearm, well take care of the patient, stupid. This is a hospital. If that’s not bigotry, it sure does look like it.
(I shot myself with an arrow, you see. Flawed wooden arrows can fracture upon launch, and since your hand is right there on the bow, the fractured arrow can be thrust right through your hand)
“Oh, but those gunshots could have been part of a crime” you say. And that’s my point– even you are programmed. If a gun is involved, well, crime. Sure, and someone could have shot me with an arrow while I was threatening them, or that cut you got chopping food could have been done on purpose by your raging spouse, and that contusion on your kid’s head from the bicycle crash might have been caused by you hitting him with a blunt object on purpose, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Get the irrational programming (the mindset; gun = crime) ironed out.
Armed Robbery Thwarted in Moscow
The local newspaper story is here. You only see part of it unless you subscribe. Basically, the robber was distracted with pulling money out of the cash drawer, which was placed on the counter and the clerk took the initiative, snatching the robber’s gun. The gun was dropped. The robber then fled, leaving the cash and the gun behind. Oops. He later came back and turned himself in– probably not a bad idea, given the circumstances.
One of the radio reports has the cops telling us, after this incident, not to fight back– to do whatever the criminals tell us to do. Uh, hey Skippy: isn’t that exactly the sort of advice that enabled the 9/11 attacks?
You can’t really plan ahead for what you’ll do, and you certainly cannot second guess the actions of the clerk. What happened this time, and what happens time and time again, is that someone recognizes an opportunity to stop a crime, and then takes that opportunity while the taking is good. That’s all.
I wouldn’t call it an act of will so much as a reflexive reaction based on a split second certainty, founded in basic principles. My son once recounted an incident at school wherein he had a habitual bully pinned to the floor, crying, before Son even really knew what had happened. No; you don’t plan this stuff, but you don’t want to be hamstrung by stupid advice from cops and other wannabe authorities either.
Good for that clerk for having the presence of mind plus the wherewithal to act. He used his bare hands against an armed robber, no one was hurt, and the robber is in custody.
Right Too Late
Hat tip; Billy Beck This can’t get enough exposure;
Some of the people close to me are in effect communists. No; they don’t attend Party rallies and most of them don’t send money to The Party (though some do through their union dues and they may not even know it) but their underlying assumptions are the same. That’s all it takes. You don’t need to be a Firm Believer in the teachings of Brother Marx, carrying around the little red book, or even understand where your beliefs came from. You only need those underlying assumptions you acquired by default sometime in childhood, and just a little bit of envy, or resentment, or frustration, or anger, and plenty of reinforcement from those with whom you’ve chosen to surround yourself. The Party and it’s allies will then be free to do the rest, because you won’t notice until it’s too late. It all sounds fairly reasonable, even good, along the way, because “we all know that something has to be done”. Right? And that something is, as always, more government (less freedom).
Suckers. I can forgive the kids (most haven’t received a proper education) but what about you adults? Seriously.
It’s interesting. I was listening this weekend to a man who barely escaped with his life from Cuba. He said his parents supported Castro. All Castro wanted was justice after all (there was clearly a lack of justice in Cuba, pre revolution) and to serve the collective good of The People. His parents supported Castro wholeheartedly. That is, until the newly empowered communists came and took everything they had– everything his parents had worked for all their lives. I heard the same basic story directly from a famous musician who had escaped from Cuba by skipping out on his handlers while on tour in the U.S. You risk your life doing that. If the catch you, they kill you, or take you back to make an example out of you. The man I was listening to this weekend was in tears, trying to warn us that the same thing is happening here in the U.S., in this land of his Last Great Hope. They’re using same promises and the same rationale, using the same underlying assumptions, with the same goals right here and right now. If it succeeds it will have the same outcome. It always does. Only this time it’s global.
It has been said that being right is ok (sometimes) but being right too soon makes you a radical extremist.
What about being right too late? What does that make you? I ask you Progressives. You’ve grown up with the warning signs all around you, and now the warning signs have reached ear-splitting decibel levels. What does it make you if you’re right too late? Or does your anger or fear, or hatred, or disgust with the human race, prevent you from caring about the consequences? I know there are those who believe there are too many people on the planet already. Some people know what we’re headed for and they secretly long for it. For other Progressives– those who just want to live a good life and want what’s “best” for everyone; What does it make you when you’re right too late?
Quote of the day—Amanda Wilcox
It wasn’t a failure of laws. I just don’t see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that.
Amanda Wilcox,
Lobbyist for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
April 6, 2012
California’s tough gun laws could not prevent Oakland tragedy
[It’s nice to see the Brady Campaign admitting gun laws cannot stop mass shootings but she still has some pretty significant symptoms of Peterson Syndrome.
Did you noticed she said “It wasn’t a failure of laws” but then in the next sentence she says she doesn’t see how gun laws could have stopped the shooting. One or the other of those statements has to be false.
The corrected statement should be:
Our gun laws have failed. Our gun laws cannot stop something like that. The best known way to stop an active criminal shooter is for another person to shoot back. As long as our gun laws make it difficult or impossible for potential victims to defend themselves these tragedies will continue to happen.
But the Brady Campaign has a vested interest in the blood of innocent people running in the streets. If they were more rare their funding would dry up and they would cease to exist. Hence they give out sound bites that at first glance support their warped view but upon closer examination cannot even maintain coherence from sentence to sentence.
See also Say Uncle and the comments to his post.—Joe]
Sometimes it’s no fun being right
In comments here, regarding Hollywood’s lack of ideas and their focus on remakes, I predicted a new series of the Three Stooges. Turns out I was right on time. They have the movie coming out this month. I’ll guess that the new series is already in the works. The Marx Brothers and then Silent flicks to follow, I suppose.
These are the people who accuse us of being “backward” or “simple-minded”.
Ignorant yahoo
Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy – and it is. And it’s tempting to dismiss this law as the work of ignorant yahoos.
The Stand Your Ground law does not enable someone to avoid arrest for shooting someone “you consider threatening”. It merely codifies what has been common law since at least Biblical times. If you are reasonably in fear of seriously body harm or death then you are protected from prosecution and civil action if you use deadly force to protect innocent life rather than having an obligation to attempt escape.
As people have known for quite sometime you shouldn’t live in a glass house if you are going to throw stones. If Krugman is looking for someone to call an ignorant yahoo he only need look as far as the nearest mirror.
More on Heavy Boots
Or is it Moron Heavy Boots? Ry brought up the “Heavy Boots” phenomenon a while back, but I hadn’t heard of it until he explained it to me and I Googled it. I was disappointed, but the story didn’t surprise me. I’ve talked to a lot of people about a lot of things, having been in the service business and in consumer credit, for over 30 years. Richard P. Feynman wrote about similar experiences he’d had in his teaching career. It’s sad to realize how many people lack that little bit of curiosity that would lead them quickly to understand some of the basics of their world.
At the music store, I put up a poster-sized photo of the full Earth taken from space. You’ve all seen it, and some of you will already know when it was taken, based on the history of the mission. I looked at it a lot, just as a beautiful image that says something about the ingenuity of Man, before I realized that it told us a few other things. So now I have some questions. This is my Heavy Boots experiment but it’s on a bit higher level. These questions are for those who have no idea when the picture was was taken without analyzing the image itself. Forget the history and the mission, and so on. It’s a simple question for those who know the basics of our solar system and of Earth’s place in it;
About what time of year was this photo taken? How can you tell? Also; About what time of day was it taken? How do you know?
Here’s another one. Looking at this image of the moon, assuming you’re facing East. What time is it? Why?
One of my older brothers liked to mess with people when we were younger. When one of his young sisters-in-law asked him what those bumps between the lanes on the freeway were for, he told them they were part of a project for the blind– so blind drivers could tell when they were crossing lanes. “Really?” came the reply. He pulled off a lot of that sort of thing, trying to see just how fantastic a story he could tell and still get someone to believe him. I suppose his behavior could be referred to as a search for Progressive voters. If you’re ignorant enough, you’ll believe anything if it’s presented just right. Our coercively-funded schools have that part covered. They actively discourage learning.
Leno had a bit on his show last night wherein he placed a magician behind the counter at a convenience store. There were some plastic Easter eggs in a counter display, labeled “Insta-Chick” or some such. The egg contained a little foam “chick” that would expand in water. The magician, introducing the new and rare product to the customers “placed one in a cup”, then “poured water over it” and a live chick came out instantly. People believed it, even after he said they were “engineered in China” such that you could let them dry out again and reanimate them later, and you didn’t need to feed them. More “Heavy Boots”. “Vote for me— I’ll give you free health care” or etc. is along the same lines.
I try not to be discouraged. There are a lot of people who don’t fall for this stuff. They can tell from looking at a photo of our planet what time it was taken, know that mass exhibits gravity, know that we can’t all get free lunch forever and there’s no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
Crazy thought of the day
With all the crazy stuff Joan Peterson says I wonder how large her team of psychologists is. And the authorities locked up Sarah Conner for months, who appears to be far more sane, and took her guns away.
Quote of the day—Marianne DeAlessi
Losing innocent children to gun fatalities can be eliminated with gun control.
Marianne DeAlessi
March 15, 2012
Argument for gun control
[What kind of fantasy world is she living in? Even ignoring the hundreds of thousands of children murdered by their own government using firearms many who might have been saved had there not been gun control the only “gun control” that could possibly achieve such a result would be the complete destruction of all firearms. And of course as the availability of firearms tends toward zero other types of violence tend to go up such that there is no net gain in safety.
It may be that she is suffering from Peterson Syndrome but if not then she should attempt to answer Just One Question before advocating for more gun control.—Joe]
Quote of the day—John Richardson
Calling Ladd Everitt an expert on gun laws is such an oxymoron that it borders on incomprehensible.
John Richardson
Consult An Expert!
March 9, 2012
[Everitt is with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
This is almost a trend. Yesterday I quoted a former police officer saying Brian Malte at the Brady Campaign didn’t know what he was talking about.—Joe]
Quote of the day—kraigwy
Mr. Malte needs to ask for a refund from his History Teacher. The Constitution says nothing about Permission in regards to the 2nd amend.
As an FTO for my department I stressed that the officer safety dictates to the officer that everyone he/she meets is carrying.
My hat goes off to every state that passes “constitutional carry’ laws, joining my state (WY) and the state I policed (AK) prior to retiring.
kraigwy
March 8, 2012
In response to “They want a gun in every nook and cranny in society with no permission needed and no background check,” Malte said, adding, “This is just a recipe for disaster.” in the article 12 States on Path to Guns Without Permits.
[“Malte” refers to Brian Malte, the director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
So here we have a former police Firearms Training Officer telling the Brady Campaign they don’t know what they are talking about.
That’s par for the course.—Joe]
‘Civilians’
It seems to have become universal. Cops refer to us as civilians, meaning, I guess, that cops don’t see themselves as civilians, meaning that they think they are military police.
If you want our respect, you might at least try using the language correctly, otherwise I’ll assume you went to cop school because you were rejected as a junior high school janitor.
I rarely watch television anymore, but last night I caught some of a show about cops in Alaska. I’ve been to several parts of the state, so I was interested in a general sort of way. Absolutely, drop-dead gorgeous photography, but it otherwise made my skin crawl. In what I can only assume is an effort to dehumanize the people they ostensibly serve, cops refer to men and women as “males” and “females”. No one is a man, or a woman, or a husband, father, son, brother, wife, mother, sister or daughter, but is a “male” or a “female” as though cops are of a different species. By their own language then, they’re non human MPs. Or is it superhuman MPs? Either way it’s sick.
They say there is a high rate of suicide in Alaska, and they showed a couple of responses to the same. I find it extremely unfortunate that they send a man with a uniform and a gun (drawn) to respond to something like that. It’s probably the worst possible choice. Yes; I know the reasoning, so don’t bother. It’s just extremely unfortunate. They hauled one guy off to a “doctor”. Gawd. The last thing that “civilian male” probably needed was cop (who refers to him as a “civilian male”) and “doctor”. The whole thing reminded me of that spoof Star Wars Cops video, only it wasn’t a spoof.
Quote of the day—Irene Peter
Ignorance is no excuse, it’s the real thing.
Irene Peter
[Especially when it is deliberate. Which means the great majority of anti-gun people are “the real thing”.—Joe]
Don’t be stupid
If you are going to be making explosives PLEASE don’t do it some place stupid—like your office at work:
A 50-year-old Lorain County man was jailed for arson on Saturday for an explosion that injured him in his Elyria office on Friday.
Police said Robert Shaw of LaGrange was mixing chemicals to build exploding targets for firearm target practice when one blew up around 9 a.m. in the office at Diamond Products on Prospect Avenue.
Go to some open space where an accident doesn’t injure others or their property. If you don’t you can spoil the fun for the rest of us who don’t have an interest in acquiring Darwin Awards.
Via email from Bubblehead Les.
Posit
There essentially are no restrictions on guns or ammunition. There are several organizations, local, national and worldwide, providing guns and ammunition to minors and to the poor, either for free or at subsidized prices, often without parental consent, even to the point of covering up for criminal use of guns in some cases so as to maximize the number of kids with access to guns. It is a human right after all. A right is a right, and that’s that. If you so much as question it, you are against children and against human rights in general, you backward-minded Neanderthal, redneck ignorant Nazi bastard. There are gun training programs in most public schools, with free ammunition available if a kid goes to a school counselor to ask for it, saying that his parents are denying him his right to ammunition.
There’s the background. It is firmly entrenched in our culture, hardly anyone is questioning it, those who do are never taken seriously, and for sure it is not threatened either by this Congress or any foreseeable one.
Then; proposed new federal legislation adds to all of the above by forcing tax payers to pay for free guns and ammunition, for the asking, nationwide. Anyone objecting to this new bill is accused of wanting to “ban guns”, denying the poorest people and the children their second amendment rights. If you can’t get it for free, immediately, any time, anywhere, your right to it has thereby been denied, QED, so without this new bill, even with everything in the first paragraph untouched and safe for the future, the second amendment is effectively banned. Poor, sobbing victim after poor, sobbing victim is paraded in front of the in-depth news show cameras to tell their stories of woe and despair arising from a lack of access to ”affordable” guns and ammunition, and the pundits have nothing but sympathy for them, and the serious understanding that can only come from having had similar experiences of their own.
Now; it is by that same resoning, in that same sort of environment, that Rick Santorum and others are accused of wanting to ban birth control.
Focus, People. Santorum may be the spawn of Satan for all I know, but neither he nor anyone else of any prominence wants to ban birth control. This entire issue was manufactured by Democrats to divert attention from the Obama economy and other Obama atrocities because they believe that “social issues” are the Republicans’ weakness and they want to keep the discussion focused there. Some among us have actually fallen for it even though it’s been used a thousand times before in broad daylight. Please get a grip.
Now I will point out that when we of the pro liberty mindset want a human right respected (one that‘s actually in the constitution, for example) we don’t demand that certain goodies be given to us as part of a government program at taxpayer’s expense and we don’t demand it be given to kids against their parents wishes. The proof of whether a “right” is really a right is that a true right never demands anything from anyone else other than non interference.
One of Many Things I’ll Never Quite Understand
Those who consider themselves iconic conservatives, or Republican leaders, often praise President Lincoln. Just reading the Emancipation Proclamation, I see it as a cheap political ploy of Clintonian style (or W. J. Clinton was of the Lincolnian tradition). It didn’t free a single slave. Furthermore, the North had slaves all through The War Between the States, and General Grant kept slaves for years after. Depending on who you listen to, Lincoln was either a brutal tyrant or a brilliant champion of liberty. I definitely do not see the latter. This whole issue is clouded in B.S. so thick I can’t see through it. Where do I turn for the truth?
Quote of the day—Bryan Miller
This is another win win for the NRA and it’s buddies in the gun lobby.
The Banksters buddies crush any opposition to them, so they can continue to fund the gun manufacturers, which in turn soaks our communities with guns, blood, and death.
Bryan Miller
Using the alias “BantheNRA“.
November 15, 2011
Comment to N.Y. judge rules against Occupy Wall Street protesters, upholds decision to dismantle Zuccotti Park encampment
[For many years Miller was the director of CeaseFire New Jersey until it went belly up.
His alias demonstrates his contempt for the First Amendment as well as the Second.
But most importantly the comment above demonstrates Miller apparently hasn’t been taking his anti-psychotic medications. He, and most anti-gun extremists, live in an alternate reality all their own.—Joe]
It a government rule! It doesn’t have to make sense
Now that my ATF license to manufacture explosives has been successfully renewed I’m going to take a chance and poke a little fun at them.
First off let me say that the people I dealt with were all very professional and went out of their way to help resolve the problem with far less hassle than they could have had they just wanted to be bureaucratic jerks. I find no fault whatsoever with the ATF people I dealt with. The problem is with the regulations. Regulations sometimes aren’t really applicable to every situation. But that doesn’t mean that the bureaucrats enforcing the regulations or the peons subject to those regulations can decide to ignore them. We are mostly just stuck with them.
With those caveats imagine my surprise when after several years of using the Taj Mahal for storage of explosives as a “Type 1” explosives magazine I was told it was actually an “indoor magazine” and hence a “Type 2” magazine. See the applicable regulations here.
The Taj Mahal looks like this:
The door you see inside the metal shed is the theft and bullet resistant portion of the magazine and is 3’x6’x6′. The metal shed is 10’x14’xHeadScalpingHeight. I considered the shed part of the magazine. The shed provides protection from the rain and snow and the heavy steel and locks provides the theft and bullet resistance. For several years the ATF inspectors apparently saw it the same way.
The new inspector and her supervisor didn’t see it that way:
It is not considered a permanent structure because it is a shed that can be moved. Am I correct in the fact that the building is not attached to the ground (with cement, etc)?
It is attached to the concrete with bolts. But that wasn’t good enough:
I have reviewed the report and photographs of the magazine and have determined it to be an indoor Type II magazine. Even though the magazine is bolted into the concrete, does not make it permanent and the shed is not incidental. For purposes of establishing an indoor magazine, ATF has determined that the building or structure in which the magazine is placed:
1. Is of suitable, stable construction to provide protection from wind and other inclement weather conditions.
2. The structure’s walls and roof are constructed of metal, wood, brick, cement or concrete and makes the structure unsusceptible to mobility or intrusion.
3. The base or floor of the structure consists of earth or other flat, level material which can sustain the weight of the magazine.
4. The doors are secured to provide additional security and theft-resistance to the magazine.In my review, I have determined that the shed meets the requirements, as stated above, for a building or structure. Even though the magazine may weigh 3000 lbs and is bolted to the concrete it still does not meet the definition of a Type 01 magazine. As it is currently constructed, this magazine is classified as a Type 2 indoor magazine. Thus it can only hold a maximum of 50 lbs of explosives materials.
Okay, so what?
The issue is that the maximum amount of explosives you can store in an “Type 2 Indoor Magazine” is 50 pounds. For a “Type 1” magazine it is determined by the distance to the nearest inhabited building or public road or railway. With a distance of 1950 feet to the nearest inhabited building I was previously allowed to store up to 18,000 pounds of high explosives at that site (sorry Barron, I was mistaken, it has to be 2000 feet before we could store 180,000 pounds). The Taj couldn’t hold that much because it was too small but it was nice to know I could pack it full without worrying about getting in trouble with the ATF.
A 50 pound limit just doesn’t work for our situation. We store about 1600 pounds at the Taj on the Saturday night before Boomershoot.
After getting the bad news from the ATF I started asking questions:
Would it become a Type I magazine, and hence be allowed more than 50 pounds of explosives material, if the shed were removed and the magazine were exposed?
I didn’t get a reply so some time later I sent another email:
I would like to know if a solution to Type I/Type II problem is for me to remove the metal shed.
It would also be useful for me to find out the definition you are using for the word “permanent” in this sentence:
Even though the magazine is bolted into the concrete, does not make it permanent and the shed is not incidental.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary (used by the ATF in ATF Ruling 2005-3) permanent means:
1. Lasting or remaining without essential change: “the universal human yearning for something permanent, enduring, without shadow of change” (Willa Cather).
2. Not expected to change in status, condition, or place: a permanent address; permanent secretary to the president.By that definition the shed and magazine are permanent. I am having difficulty in imaging how it can be considered a Type II magazine because according to 555.208, “A Type II magazine is a box, trailer, semitrailer, or other mobile facility”. Below is a picture of the base of the magazine and shed while it was under construction:
Four inches of concrete were poured into the forms above and the shed and magazine was bolted to it. I am unable to find any definition of “mobile” for which the concrete slab and attached structures qualifies. If it would make a difference I would be glad to weld the magazine to the slab instead of just bolting it.
If necessary what I can also do is only use it to store materials “In the process of manufacture” as per 555.205 since if it is “In the process of manufacture” the materials don’t need to be kept in a locked magazine.
Please advise.
In response the story changed just a little bit:
Just to make sure that I have classified this magazine correctly, I am forwarding your e-mail to our Explosives Industry Programs Branch for review. They will make a classification of your magazine.
I have one question, I agree that the shed would be permanent but it is not part of the magazine. The shed is what makes it an indoor magazine. Since the regulations do not have a description of an indoor Type 1 we must classify this as a Type II. Even though difficult, can the bolts be removed and thus making the magazine mobile?
Less than hour later (I’m impressed the bureaucracy could move this fast) I received the following email:
The Explosives Industry Programs Branch (EIPB) also has classified this as an indoor magazine. Since there is no definition for a Type I indoor magazine, it must be classified as a Type II. EIPB stated that you can remove the shed and that would resolve the 50 lb limitation. The limitation for the magazine would be 18,000 lbs. The other possible solution is that you can apply for a variance to store in excess of 50 lbs in an indoor magazine. The magazine must meet the Tables of Distance and construction requirements. I am not sure it will be approved but you may want to make that request before taking down the shed.
So it’s the existence of the shed and not the “mobility” of the shed that makes it a Type 2! That give me an opening for more questions:
Assumi
ng I remove the shed I would then need to cover the magazine with a more weather resistant covering such as the metal from the shed. What would the maximum spacing between the magazine and the metal covering before it would become an indoor magazine again?
You can see where I’m going with this, right? Apparently so could the ATF because they responded with:
I am trying to find a simpler solution to the problem. I have a few suggestions into our EIPB that may not be an extensive as building a new structure but changing the old one. I should have an answer in the morning.
Early the next morning I received the following email:
Here is the easiest solution that we could come up with. Empty the shed of all materials except the magazine, remove the doors or a wall of the shed. Since the magazine is not totally enclosed in the shed it would no longer be an indoor magazine. I think that would resolve all of the issues. Let me know what you think.
So the bottom line is that if I remove the doors from the shed I can store 18,000 pounds of explosives. If I put the doors on I can only store 50 pounds.
It doesn’t have to make sense. It’s just a government rule.