Category Archives: Current News

This is about stuff in the mass media that generally has a short interest life span. Speculation about an election outcome a few days before the election is an example.

Quote of the ages

Posted on by

“‘Love thy enemy’ does not mean kiss him and invite him into your country. It means stand up and fight, with grace.”
— Roy Masters, “Advice Line” April 29, 2013

He was speaking of what he refers to as the Dalai Lama’s cowardice in dealing with the Chinese, but the quote rang out to me as with regard to radical Islam. Years ago in Idaho, we had a Neo Nazi group calling themselves the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian Aryan Nations. They were racist socialist revolutionaries who managed to use a bomb or two, causing some property damage. They were rooted out of Idaho for the most part, and good riddance. I didn’t like some of the methods used, but good riddance. They weren’t from around here, and they figured that since most people in Idaho were white, their white power, anti-Semite nonsense would be tolerated. They figured wrong. I bring them up only as a comparison to the even more virulent and dangerous radical Islamists, who’ve been allowed into this country, often welcomed with open arms. If we had the same recognition of bigotry, promotion of violence and power-lust regarding the Islamists that we had with the Aryan Nations we’d be raiding certain Mosques and other organizations in the U.S., but violent bigotry that hides behind Christianity is a vastly more convenient target than the exact same violent bigotry that hides behind Islam. The difference is of course a result of political subterfuge and we can’t fight it because we’re short on grace.

It’s like our societal immune system is degraded, leaving us open to all forms of infection.

International Worker’s Day violence

Posted on by

It must be in their nature to be violent:

 

Great. Just great. I work at what is essentially “ground zero” in Seattle. These communist and socialist scum don’t help their cause with me any by doing this.

Another joke comes to life

Posted on by

Today’s sarcastic jokes are often tomorrow’s real life. And here we are once again. No doubt, many gun owners said after the event at the Boston Marathon, or thought to themselves sarcastically; “I guess we’ll have to ban pressure cookers then. That’ll stop future bombings.” Well, it turns out that a company halted sales of pressure cookers after the Boston bombing.

Sure; it’s not an actual ban imposed by out-of-control law makers. They halted sales of pressure cookers voluntarily for a while “out of respect”. You may think; “What’s the big deal, Lyle? Jeeze.” and to that I say that this is quite insane, and that this sort of insanity is rampant. It is promoted.

It’s a cooking implement, for Pete’s sake! Put out some flowers if you want to show respect, or, you know, actually reach out and offer help to the victims and their families? Ever thought of that? Hmm?

What if someone used a pair of crutches to commit a crime? You going to halt the sale of crutches “out of respect”? Idiots. Hmm…you know it would be entirely possible to make a bomb using a fire extinguisher as the containment vessel. Let’s ban those then. Same goes for guns – we restrict the tools of self protection in response to crime. What a bunch of blithering idiots we’re becoming.

This is yet another in a very long line of cases of punishing the innocent for the actions of the guilty. They punished the whole city of Boston too, with that lock-down. I’m disgusted that there wasn’t a city-wide defiance of that order. Such cowards as we are, such zombies, maybe we deserve to be slaves.

It’s the Religious Right don’t you know

Posted on by

Heard on my way to work today – Network news break;

“Boston bombers blah blah blah Religious Right blah blah bombers blah blah Chechnya blah blah blah Far Right.”

As always, Progressives refer to all icons of evil as “The Far Right” or the “Religious Right”. That was the sole purpose of the “report”.

Back in junior high school in the 1970s I was taught the same thing, only then it was (and usually still is) that the Nazis were “Far Right”. Never mind that they referred to themselves as national socialists, and were inspired by the American Progressives and the Eugenics movement. Oh, and they were pretty tight with the Middle Eastern Muslims.

Yeah, so we’re to believe that the more you advocate freedom, the more you support the American founding principles of liberty, the more you support the concept of minimum government and maximum individual responsibility, the closer you get to Nazis and Islamofascists. Stupid as that is, there are those who believe it. And so they keep beating that drum.

As expected, the report did not contain the word “Islam” or the word “Islamist” or “jihad” or anything similar. They were so upset that, yet again, the perpetrator was not a teapartier, they went ahead and made the connection anyway. As usual also; they did it with innuendo. Just plant the little seed and watch it grow.

Ain’t it so

Posted on by

This does sort of put it into perspective.

Quote of the day—President Barack Obama

Posted on by

We still do not know who did this or why. And people shouldn’t jump to conclusions before we have all the facts.

President Barack Obama
April 15, 2013
In regard to the bombs detonated at the Boston Marathon.
[I fully agree.—Joe]

Boston explosives

Posted on by

I’m setting aside the tears that come from looking at the pictures and reading the articles and just channeling “Spock” as best I can on something I know a little bit about.

The first thing I noticed from watching the video and then from the still photo I found at the Los Angles Times is that this looks like a crude homemade bomb.

BostonBombViaLaTimes

Here is a cropped version from the Boston Globe YouTube video:

BostonBombViaBostonGlobeVideo

This is a full two seconds later from that same video:

BostonBombViaBostonGlobeVideoPlus2Sec

See all that flame? And it looks as if there is still fuel burning in the cloud two seconds after the explosion.

I’m almost certain that no commercial or military explosive produces that much flame. Something like that would be totally banned in the mining industry.

That may mean there was a great excess of fuel in the explosive composition. Boomerite has an excess of oxygen which makes for easier detonation. Maximum power comes from a balance of oxygen and fuel. Some explosives are naturally oxygen or fuel rich. For example TNT is fuel rich. During WW II they would add ammonium nitrate which is (under the proper conditions) an explosive that is oxygen rich. The excess oxygen in the AN increased the power of the detonation by consuming the excess fuel of the TNT.

With that much flame persisting that long after the explosion occurred means huge amounts of power was wasted in light and relatively slowly expanding gases. This was not a military grade explosive. Getting the most bang for the least weight is worth the cost of getting the oxygen balance right.

This means it’s a homemade explosive.

Another possibility is that it wasn’t really a detonation at all but rather a deflagration. For example gun powders typically do not detonate. They “just” burn very rapidly. The flash you see at the muzzle of your gun at night (and sometimes even in bright sunlight) is composed mostly of burning particles of gunpowder. Confine the powder in a strong closed container, such as a pipe, and you get an explosion when the container bursts.

From the sound of the explosion and the speed of the blast product development I’m leaning toward a deflagration.

Mr. Completely sent me an email asking if I could “rule either in or out that readily available reloading powder could have been used”. My answer to that question is that I think it is definitely possible.

Update April 16, 6:20 AM: At least one source says:

…the devices used gunpowder as the explosive and were packed with ball bearings and other shrapnel to maximise injuries.

Update April 16, 1:25 PM: Rick Boatwright has an excellent analysis which points to black powder being the explosive.

CA gun laws violate Sikh religion?

Posted on by

Interesting slant. Basically, the guy claims that the Sikh religion require him to be able to defend himself and his family against criminal attack and injustice, and the CA assault weapon and standard capacity magazine ban violates that religious requirement.

Gun law vs exercise of religion

That is an interesting twist – could be a good thing to follow.

(There is a reason one of my characters in The Stars Came Back is a Sikh.)

Quote of the day—Magpul Industries Corp.

Posted on by

We have said all along that based on the legal problems and uncertainties in the bill, as well as general principle, we will have no choice but to leave if the Governor signs this into law. We will start our transition out of the state almost immediately, and we will prioritize moving magazine manufacturing operations first. We expect the first PMAGs to be made outside CO within 30 days of the signing, with the rest to follow in phases.

Magpul Industries Corp.
Facebook statement, March 18, 2013.
[H/T David Hardy.

What gun owners did to politicians in 1994 over the AWS should happen to the legislators and governors of states that even attempted to implement these repressive laws. Then they should be considered politically untouchable and used as examples to others for the rest of their lives as if they were Grand Wizards of the KKK.—Joe]

Wow!

Posted on by

Via Sebastian.

Lupica: Morbid find suggests murder-obsessed gunman plotted Newtown, Conn.’s Sandy Hook massacre for years:

What investigators found was a chilling spreadsheet 7 feet long and 4 feet wide that required a special printer, a document that contained [his] obsessive, extensive research — in nine-point font — about mass murders of the past, and even attempted murders.

But it wasn’t just a spreadsheet. It was a score sheet.

Someone that dedicated and reasonably intelligent cannot be stopped short of an extremely repressive police state. Attempting to legislate preventive measures for someone like that is insane in any society and should be criminal in a free society.

What can, and should, be legislatively done is to enable and strengthen the defense of the potential victims.

New Idaho Concealed Weapons License

Posted on by

From Mike Brown, Executive Director/General Counsel of Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance:

Fellow shooters:
 
For the past several years we at the Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance have been working to get more reciprocity for Idaho concealed weapons licenses. This year we were able to get a bill printed- House Bill 192 which establishes a new tier of concealed  weapons licensing- the Enhanced Concealed Weapons License (ECWL). This bill has been tailored to meet the requirements of those states which recognize at least some other states licenses, but which currently do not recognize the current Idaho CWL such as Washington and Nevada. The new ECWL is completely optional and requires training equivalent to NRA Personal Protection, including live fire and qualified legal instruction on firearms law and the use of deadly force by private citizens, thereby allowing much improved recognition by other states.

Although the new ECWL will have no affect on the current license, thus leaving it available, the ECWL will have the same in-state benefits as the current license and will not require the current license as a prerequisite. This is an exciting development for those of us who want to carry in other states and have had to get out-of-state licenses to get the coverage we need. We are already working with officials in other states to recognize the new Idaho enhanced license when it goes into effect on July 1. We hope to have enough states recognize the new license so that an Idaho resident will be able to carry in up to 40 states.
 
We have heard nothing but positive comments on House Bill 192. The most common response has been, “Why didn’t Idaho do this years ago?” Believe me we have been trying.
 
Despite passing unanimously in the House, H192 is in trouble in the Senate. Senator Lee Heider of Twin Falls attempted to send the bill to the amending order on Friday. With two weeks left in the session this would have killed the bill!
 
H192 needs your help: please contact your Senator and ask them to vote for H192 when it comes to the floor this week.  If you live in Twin Falls (District 24) please contact Senator Lee Heider and ask him why he wants to kill the enhanced bill. Do not believe anyone who tells you that they just want to “amend” the bill– anything other than a “Yes” vote is a vote to kill enhanced licensing.
See you on the range,
 
 
Mike Brown
Executive Director/General Counsel
Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance
 
P.S. To learn more about IDSSA or to make a donation to help us continue our work for you in Idaho, please visit www.IdahoSSA.org

“The economic AND the personal sphere.”

Posted on by

Those are Rand Paul’s words from CPAC, and as much as a like what I see in Rand Paul, that phraseology really bugs me. That’s like saying we must pay attention to the weather AND the temperature, humidity, pressure, precipitation, cloud cover and wind as though the term “weather” doesn’t already take those other things into account.

As a business owner, that attempt to separate the economic from the personal has never made any sense at all.

In fact, it is impossible to separate the economic from the personal. Name any “personal” subject or issue and tell me it has no economic implications whatsoever. Name any economic subject or issue and then tell me it has nothing whatsoever to do with personal choice.

Tax me, limit my business activities, my investments, get between me and my bank, and you are directly attacking my personal choices. Try to tell me who I must or must not associate with, how I must interact with others, or what I can do with my body, and that is a direct attack on my economic liberty. One equals the other. There is no moral or logical separation between them.

Yes yes, I know that we’re supposed to separate the personal from the economic, as though they’re different, for political reasons, but that’s a ruse. A trick. I will not step over the line into Crazyland just to make someone else’s politics easier, or to assuage their guilt. No, Young Grasshopper; there is just the one word that matters, the one that encompasses everything, and you’re either for it or against it – liberty.

Pure plutonium

Posted on by

That’s a John Ross term, for something that “nukes” the enemies of freedom. Tonight’s episode of the Glenn Beck program is pure plutonium. The fastest hour you’ll spend this week is the March 13 episode of the Glenn Beck program.

Call in sick, take a vacation, whatever it takes; watch this episode. Hang on every word. Even the commercials, most of them anyway, will have you up, out of your seat. It’s on theBlazeTV.

THIS IS THE (new) MAIN STREAM MEDIA, or medium. If you are not a subscriber, you are missing out. I don’t care who you are, you are missing out. They have a free trial membership, so you have no excuse. Support them.

Tonight’s guests include one Starr Parker. I’ve read two of her books. The other guests are very good also, and it is clear that they love each other. You will get hope from this.

If there was any doubt before tonight, there is no longer any doubt– Glenn Beck is slated for death. Keep an eye out. I think he knows this and he can take care of himself, but keep an eye on it.

This is what can happen when you own your own network, and it’s beautiful. What you may not know are the things Glenn could NOT say when he was on someone else’s network. That’s a story unto itself, but I digress. Go watch, and for that matter spend your sick day, or your vacation day, watching this whole week’s worth of shows.

It’s is an addendum to Joe’s latest post.

To you Progressives out there, and you know who you are, weep. You cannot escape the truth forever. We are WATCHING YOU.

What we KNOW…. that isn’t true

Posted on by

Mark Twain said: It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” I’ve seen a lot of examples of this in my life, and heard of more. I’m sure you have too. In fact, in installment 002 of “The Stars Came Back” Helton points out that a lot of time the so-called experts have really BAD plans, and that you can’t tell what the outcome of a lot of projects will be based on the credentials of the people starting it.(He is specifically talking about climate science, in fact)

The Climate debate is no different. There is a LOT of garbage out there (and I say this a a teacher with a cert that includes “Earth Science;” I’m in the “CO2 is plant food” camp) Then, along comes something from out of the dry fields that takes on directly one of those “common knowledge, common sense” things directly, and says, “We were wrong. The solution we have been pushing for decades is CAUSING the problem!” It takes some good sized balls, and a dose of humility the size of a Hollywood celeb’s coke habit, to make an admission like that. More so to take that fact, and a much better DEMONSTRATED solution, on the road.

We all know over-grazing causes land to turn into deserts, right?

Maybe not. Maybe the solution to desertification is to put MORE beef in the fields, and on the grill. It’s a win-win-win-win, meaning the lefties will HATE it, and fight it tooth and nail. But the guy makes a good case.

Letter to my representative

Posted on by

“Regarding the gun issue (and all issues really); We who advocate liberty are getting tired of reacting to the Left’s latest outrages. Shouldn’t they be forced to react to our “outrages”? In that spirit, I call for a bill removing all firearm restrictions on the state level, and for ordering all state and local law enforcement to prevent any federal gun law enforcement in the state. In other words, uphold and protect the constitution you’re all sworn to uphold and protect.

How’s THAT for an “outrage”? Let’s see the leftists go nuts trying to pick that one apart, and get them to feel lucky if WE only get half of OUR way this time through.

See how this works?.

Sincerely,
[Me]”

Not that it’ll have a whelk’s chance in a supernova of doing any good. We’re dealing with Republicans after all. But it has to be said, if for no other reason than to be able to say we told them so, to give them a chance to do the right thing while they still have a chance.

The right to bear arms

Posted on by

SAF just announced:

The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.

The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.” That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“Illinois lawmakers need to create some kind of licensing system or face the prospect of not having any regulations at all when Judge Posner’s deadline arrives,” Gottlieb said. “They need to act. They can no longer run and hide from this mandate.”

“We were delighted with Judge Posner’s ruling in December,” he continued, “and today’s decision by the entire circuit to allow his ruling to stand is a major victory, and not just for gun owners in Illinois. Judge Posner’s ruling affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door.”

In December, Judge Posner wrote, “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

Judge Posner subsequently added, “To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.”

“It is now up to the legislature,” Gottlieb said, “to craft a statute that recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to carry outside the home, without a sea of red tape or a requirement to prove any kind of need beyond the cause of personal protection.”

The ruling also affects a similar case filed by the National Rifle Association known as Shepard v. Madigan.

This is a stepping stone to slap down California, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Washington D.C., Maryland, and others that have “May Issue” permitting for carry. It may even enable nationwide Constitutional Carry.

Bloomberg/MAIG, the Brady Campaign, and other anti-freedom groups may soon have very little legislative action available for them to consider.

Third Power has comments too.

Alcohol is a carcinogen?

Posted on by

I did not know this:

…when it comes to cancer, there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

There are other sources that appear to agree with this conclusion.

There have been times in the past when I would have a few ounces of red wine before going to bed on a regular basis. Recently I only occasionally have a sip of wine from the glass of Barb L. Hence my lifetime alcohol consumption is very low and now I can be even more self-righteous about it.

Quote of the day—Bernardine Dohrn

Posted on by

There’s no way to be committed to non-violence in one of the most violent societies that history has ever created. I’m not committed to non-violence in any way.

Bernardine Dohrn
In the 2002 documentary film The Weather Underground. Get the movie from Amazon here.
[From the Wikipedia entry:

Dohrn with ten other SDS members associated with the RYM issued, on June 18, 1969, a sixteen-thousand-word manifesto entitled, “You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows” in New Left Notes.

…

The manifesto stated that “the goal [of revolution] is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism.”

Leftists know their agenda can only be implemented with violence. Government is violence and the threat of violence. They wish to use government to create their utopia. To advocate non-violence and have a leftist philosophy is a contradiction. To allow people not of the government to have the means to resist government is to allow their idyllic future to be denied.

The murdering, anti-gun, pro-leftist, ex-cop, from Los Angeles who was killed this week is just one in a long line of his type.—Joe]

Talking to the Pols

Posted on by

I can’t make it to the Wednesday meeting in Oly. If anyone wants to use this for themselves, feel free to.

I don’t mind background checks for gun purchases. But, I’m against 1558 for the following reasons:

If it keeps records, then it is de-facto registration. If it doesn’t keep records, it’s virtually unenforceable.

It’s awkward and expensive, and will result in victimless paper-work crimes that will hurt otherwise law-abiding folks. Example: A teacher (who needs a background check to work) with a CPL (which requires a background check) could not sell to another teacher with a CPL without paying for ANOTHER background check, and if they make an honest mistake and don’t, even though neither are prohibited persons, one will become a felon and lose their job. This law will ONLY catch the otherwise law-abiding.

It’s trivially easy to work around: The same teacher could sell the other a $500 box of ammunition, and GIVE the gun to them as a groundhog day present, and be totally legal.

On the other hand, if gifting DOES get covered in an amendment, then other problems still arise, and mostly otherwise law-abiding teachers will get caught up in a felony paperwork “crime”

It leaves other situations ambiguous. Example: if a friend calls up at midnight, and says she found out that her violent ex-husband just got released, if I drive immediately over and LOAN her a gun until she can scrape together enough money to buy her own (either the one I loan her, or another one), then I’m a criminal. Maybe. Or maybe not. If I don’t I don’t loan it, she may die. And the cops can’t do ANYTHING until the Ex is beating on her door.

I am also against 1612, particularly in light of 1588, because caught in with the dangerous violent criminals (which I agree we ought to know about) will be people who are NOT dangerous, and simply committed paperwork violations out of ignorance. More narrowly written, it might be a good law.

I am against 1676 because while it sounds good, not all “children” are equal, and people could be found guilty even if no-one is hurt, or even if good things happen. Example: a 15 year old is legally a child. They can legally be left at home alone. There have been recent cases in the news where such a person retrieved a gun and used it to defend themselves from a violent home invader. Under this law, as written, the homeowner would have been guilty of reckless endangerment if they allowed their child the ability to defend themselves when the adult was away and unable to do so. It’s a one-size-fits-all solution that will catch good people in its trap, even when no-one gets hurt. Again, more narrowly written, it is a reasonable idea.

I am against 1147. Because there are so many reasons a person might be guilty of “unlawful possession of a firearm,” including paperwork violations where there is no intent to do harm, and not actual harm to anyone occurred, it creates one more “got’cha” for people who made honest mistakes somewhere else, earlier in life. Again, it’s not a bad idea, but should be more narrowly drafted to only get the people who are dangerous and we really want to keep guns away from.

Lastly, a general argument: Seattle just had its first murder of the year last week. Chicago, which has a virtual ban an ALL guns, had 40 just in January. Do we REALLY need to change our laws? Yes, their misuse is tragic, but “doing something!” is not the same as “making things better.”

Thanks for your attention.

That old, outdated document…

Posted on by

…written by old, dead, white, misogynist slave owners who aren’t the boss of us.

We are told that the founders wrote the second amendment with muskets in mind, and that they couldn’t possibly have foreseen the deadly effectiveness of our modern weaponry. The Bill of Rights, the enemy says, should be interpreted with that understanding, which means we should be allowed to have all the flintlock long rifles and muskets we want. Banning effective modern weapons is therefore not only permissible but is the necessary, “right thing to do”.

We’re all very familiar with this argument, but like everything else coming from the Progressives it misses the point entirely.

The purpose of the American Revolution, and of the Constitution, was to secure liberty. The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the people at large would keep any army the government could muster “in awe”. Their words.
That concept makes perfect sense for a people who, not only had just defeated the most powerful military in the world, in part using personally owned weapons, but who saw the purpose of government as being “…to secure these rights…”

The new concept of that time (and it is still very new today – so new that even now very few people understand it) was that government functions at the pleasure of the People – that ultimately the people hold the power, and individuals’ rights having been “…endowed by their creator…” cannot be altered or abridged by anyone for any reason.

The second amendment is a natural expression of these concepts. It defines the force relationship between government and the people. WE hold the power. Rights belong to US and cannot be altered by any mere mortal. Rights can be violated by criminals, certainly, but not altered.

Therefore; if we are going to “update” anything with regard to personal weaponry for the purposes of the second amendment, so as to maintain the force relationship required to secure liberty, we must have weaponry that will truly and efficiently keep the most powerful, modern military in the world “in awe”.

In support of that simple point; I don’t want to see any of you making that silly “Semi-autos are OK because they aren’t assault rifles” argument any more, or its twin brother; “Those media types are trying to confuse people over the difference…” That’s the argument of the loser– he’s already ceded the main point, and is now arguing (pleading) over the details of the violations of his rights and those of his neighbors.

The point is, Young Grasshopper, that semi-autos are OK, and assault rifles and machineguns are even MORE OK. And now you need to ask yourself; just what would the private citizenry want to have, so as to keep a modern army “in awe”? And right there, after thinking about that for a few weeks, you begin to see the meaning of the second amendment.

If liberty is worth defending, then surely it is worth defending effectively and efficiently.

Of course the weaponry is only a part of the equation. The understanding of the principles, and the resolve that comes from that understanding, is the prerequisite. Without that, this conversation is pointless.