Category Archives: Crap For Brains

People and especially governments do some incredibly stupid stuff. This is about those stupid actions.

More on Heavy Boots

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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’

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.

Quote of the day—Anne Laurie

Posted on by

Starbucks? This is your bold, patriotic idea of a dangerous venue in which to flaunt your precious Second Amendment pacifiers? Because laptop-wielding hipsters are soooo freaking terrifying? Because the baristers are armed with… scalding hot milk foam?

If your gun is a tool, it is something to be treated with the respect you’d show any potentially dangerous tool. Somehow I don’t see a spontaneous uprising of lumberjacks carrying chainsaws and construction workers flourishing jackhammers at the local Starbucks, because this is the real world, not a badly scripted porno movie. Semi-retired CPAs who listen to a lot of Rush Limbaugh, please copy.

Anyone who has to demonstrate his political allegiances by flashing a gun at a Starbucks has presumably decided that it’s too risky to “support the Second Amendment” at a Dunkin Donuts… where the professional security forces hang out. Or even at the local McDonald’s, where some safety-conscious mommy at the ball pit would be liable to give you a very hurtful talking-to.

Anne Laurie
March 3, 2010
Open Thread: Penis Substitutes At the Ready!
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

From the title to any hint of substance in the post itself Laurie demonstrates her total clueness of what the Starbucks conflict was about.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brandoch Daha

Posted on by

In real life, you solve problems by breaking them down into smaller problems that are trivial by themselves. But if you respond to crazy circular logic by refuting each step as you go along, you lose track of the fact that you’re actually talking to a crazy person, and you lose the argument. Because by the time you’ve proven to a anti-gunner that he’s not Napoleon, he’s already telling you, with equally invincible conviction, that he’s Jesus. So you ask him if he was in fact born in a manger, and he tells you that Buckingham Palace is in fact a manger, you redneck, and before you’re done explaining what a manger is, he’s already tired of being Mary Queen of Scots, at which point you’re like “Wait, Buckingham Palace was built after she died!”, and you know what he says?

“Kiss me, Josephine, I’ve beaten Wellington again!”

Brandoch Daha
February 16, 2012
Comment to Fear driven society
[Awesome!

It reminds me of one of the responses to Just One Question, “What colour is orange: True or False?”

Many of these people are truly nuts and cannot be reasoned with. They simply don’t have the mental capacity. We should be alert for the signs then change our method of engagement or stop entirely when the crazy becomes apparent.—Joe]

Mercedes Benz (revisited)

Posted on by

Janis Lyn Joplin, also known as Pearl, The Queen of Rock and Roll, The Queen of Psychedelic Soul, or The Queen of Rocking The Blues, made some good music, to be sure.  Mercedes Benz though was pure snark against capitalism– the straw man hypocrite, Christian American materialist that her generation thought defined “The (American) System”.  They still think much the same today.  They’re the Obama voters and the Madison protesters.  Their kids are the Occupy movement.

I wrote new words in response to the old tune, as snark against the socialists.  I call it Lifetime Free Ride;

Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride
My friends all have trust funds
An’ it’s hur,tin’ my pride
Tax the productive
Until they die
Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride

Obama
Won’t you give me
My own Occ,u,py crowd
I’m ig’n’r’nt and stupid
But I like bein’ loud
Never worked a day in my lifetime
I’m worth,less an’ proud
Obama
Won’t you give me
My own Occ,u,py crowd

Obama
Won’t you buy me
Uncondi,tio,nal love
I’m countin’ on you, Sir
There’s no one else above
I’ll need you on my side
When push comes to shove
Obama
Won’t you buy me
Uncondi,tio,nal love

(everybody)

Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride
My friends all have trust funds
An’ it’s hur,tin’ my pride
Tax the productive
Until they die
Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride

(That’s it…heh heh heh)

I have a picture of her pointing a finger of blame at the camera (at all of us), mocking us, while she was in the throes of self-destruction.  To me it’s iconic of the left.

Markley’s Law defacement

Posted on by

I don’t know exactly when or where it happened but someone defaced the bumper sticker on my vehicle:

MarkleysLawBumperSticker

It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Quote of the day—Marc Rubin

Posted on by

There is not a shadow of doubt, none whatsoever, that the 2nd amendment as written and as intended by the Founders has nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun. That is absolute and not open to the slightest interpretation.

Marc Rubin
August 2, 2010
Supreme Court Ruling on 2nd Amendment Proves Conservative Hypocrisy and Dishonesty
[I wonder if Rubin thinks Alan Dershowitz are Laurence Tribe are conservatives and lesser constitutional scholars than he?

My hypothesis is that Rubin has crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert Mahler

Posted on by

Didn’t they fall to the ground?

Robert Mahler
Assistant Crown attorney in Ontario, Canada
January 31, 2012
Court adjourns homeowner’s self-defence trial to clarify confusing gun control law
This was referring to the shell casing from a .38 caliber revolver. Mahler was prosecuting a man for firing three shots to scare off masked men who were throwing “firebombs” (Molotov Cocktails) at his house.
[Not only is the prosecutor so ignorant of firearms that he believed revolvers automatically eject spent shell casings but the government initially attempted to prosecute him for defending himself and his home. The video of the three guys calmly walking around throwing the “firebombs” apparently was going to hinder the case of the prosecution so they dropped that charge. They then charged the victim with “careless storage of a firearm”.

I am of the opinion the prosecutor should be charged with crimes against humanity. Everyone knows you have a right to defend yourself against a violent attack. For the prosecutor to use the force of government to intimidate people who exercise such an obvious natural right warrants an extremely harsh response. And for the prosecutor to base a significant portion of his case on the belief that a revolver automatically ejects it’s shell casings qualifies him for a “Crap for Brains” mention.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ken

Posted on by

The peasants who told the fairy tales were superstitious people who were not critical thinkers, and it shows in the stories. Joan Peterson is like that: you expect at least a pseudo logical argument, but instead you get the weird ramblings of a woman with the critical thinking abilities of an 18th century peasant.

Ken
Comment to That is what I am afraid of.
[If the lack of critical thinking skills was something that common it makes me wonder how we ever made it out of the dark ages. And much more important is the answer to this question, “Is the prevalence of Peterson Syndrome evidence we are headed into dark age?” Freedom and enlightenment may have been just a short twinkle in the big picture of human history.—Joe]

That is what I am afraid of

Posted on by

Joan Peterson writes, “Rights of gun owners will be placed right along side of the rights of Americans to be safe from senseless shootings.”

You have zero rights “to be safe from senseless shootings” or be safe from someone beating you with a baseball bat, or be safe from someone cutting your liver out with a sharpened credit card.

What you can reasonably expect is such criminals will be punished by our legal system.

Peterson thinking is so scrambled that I don’t think she even understands the concept of a right but this time I think she said something refreshingly honest and almost profoundly revealing. She wants people to have same right to own a firearm as “to be safe from senseless shootings”. That is saying she wants you to have no right to own a firearm.

Thank you Brady Campaign Board Member Joan Peterson for finally saying what we have long claimed and you and your organization have long denied.

Update: Mostly off topic but I left the following comment on her post. I post it here out of fear she will not allow it to be seen on her blog.

Last September at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous I spent many hours talking to Paul Barrett and have continued discussions with him via email since. And he will be attending a shooting event I am hosting in April. He readily admits he is a novice in the field of firearms and still has a lot to learn.

He has also agreed with me with there is no data to indicate a legal limit on the capacity of firearm magazines would result in a net increase in safety of the public. And even in his book he states that efforts to pass such a law would fail and would hence be a waste of time and effort.