I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
[And I predict future unhappiness if we continue down this superhighway to socialism.–Joe]
Don’t let it happen here. It will kill people. Not just U.S. citizens but Canadians as well. It also violates my Jews in the Attic Test.
Via an email from Larry.
The ATF has released the latest version of their book on explosives law known as the “orange book”. I haven’t received my copy yet but it can be downloaded here.
I keep my copy in my laptop computer case for easy reference. Sometimes I know the rules and the law better than the ATF inspectors they send out. If you are going to play with Tannerite or Target-Master targets you should know both local and Federal law. Then don’t do stupid stuff.
We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down.
William F. Buckley
[Sadly the majority doesn’t want freedom for themselves let alone the minority.–Joe]
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville
[Kevin’s post reminded me of this. And how ironic that Kevin’s inspiration for this post, Markadelphia, claims corporations oppress people. Governments have a near monopoly on force while corporations have can only use force, via the court system, to enforce contracts and monopolies (such as patents) granted to them by the government. The more power that is granted the government the more oppression that is possible and inevitably occurs. People that advocate more government control are, by their very nature, advocating oppression.–Joe]
The last line of Donald Munro’s article brings up a good question, but the previous paragraphs have the answer. From Airport security is a theater:
But the effectiveness of the security isn’t the only factor at work here. One of the reasons we’re so willing to endure the elaborate rituals we enact at the airport is because it makes us feel as if we’re doing something.
You might debate whether that something has a real impact, but the important thing is that when we act this way, it makes us feel safer.
That’s what theater is all about: creating a different world and transporting the audience there, if only for a moment.
The question is why we’ve so passively agreed as a culture to the roles we play without questioning the need for rewriting the script.
As Munro already knows, we as a culture aren’t rewriting the script because it makes some people feel safer. It’s irrational to expect people to behave rationally.
In closely related news Kevin is now apparently a suspected terrorist.
Anytime someone says a government employee was, “Just doing their job” my head nearly explodes with instant anger. It doesn’t apply in all cases but the first thought that comes to my mind is, “That defense wasn’t allowed at the Nuremberg Trials.” If their job is violation of constitutionally protected rights then they are criminals. One doesn’t defend criminals with a defense of “They were just following orders.” Or “They were just doing the job they were hired to do.” There are very few crimes that I would be allowed to defend myself with the claim of “I didn’t know it was a crime” or “I was just doing what my boss told me to do.” The standard should be no different for government employees.
All this was brought up by reading some posts and watching a set of videos I came across via Sebastian. A Canadian publisher is being questioned by “The Human Rights Commission” over the publications of some cartoons (yes, those cartoons) that offended some Muslims. The relevant links are:
Some might only see some middle-aged lady doing her job. What I see is that she is backed up by men with guns–as many as it takes to enforce her decisions. She may be a very nice person but when someone works for the government to enforce laws and regulations they are exercising force. Dozens or even hundreds of “rough men with guns” will enforce their will upon the violators of those laws and regulations. That a “Human Rights Commission” would give more than a few milliseconds of thought to an expression of speech that did not advocate illegal violence tells you all you need to know to conclude this isn’t about human rights. It’s about the repression of human rights.
If she were doing this in the U.S. I would be advocating for her prosecution under 18 USC 242.
Liberty is always unfinished business.
American Civil Liberties Union
[I have some “issues” with the ACLU, but not with this quote. This quote selection was to augment my next post.–Joe]
As I reported yesterday The American Jewish Committee says the government need to take our guns from us so it can protect us.
Here is an example of the government protecting us from a five year old child. I especially like the part about the mother not being allowed to hug him while he is being detained.
TSA — A Security Theater.
It was quite a while back that I invited Lyle to blog here. Via many long conversations and numerous lengthy emails it was clear he had penetrating, even brutal, insight that others would benefit from. He told me (IIRC) for me to offer him this forum was like the P.J. O’Rourke line about giving power and money to the government. But that he would think about it. Within a day or two the temptation overcame him and he made his first post.
Lyle hasn’t posted that often and I always thought he was holding back some. But then he would get links to his posts from certain bloggers I had never gotten links from and that made me a little bit envious. Still, the razor sharp penetration, straight to the bone, wasn’t on display as much as I expected.
His most recent post–now that’s what I’m talking about.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P. J. O’Rourke
U.S. journalist. Parliament of Whores
Preface, “Why God is a Republican and Santa Claus Is a Democrat” (1991).
Sebastian tells us about a Random Conversation About Fingerprinting. A woman (who happens to be very anti-gun) doesn’t want to get her fingerprints taken just so she can be a crossing guard near a school. Sebastian compares it to gun owners exercising constitutionally guaranteed rights having to submit fingerprints first. Which leads to his observation:
What goes around, comes around. You can’t expect to empower the state to take away liberty from people you find undesirable, and then expect the state to respect your liberty when you end up in the cross hairs. When you find yourself in that situation, the people who’s liberties have already been trampled on may not be sympathetic enough to help you.
Of course this reminded me of the famous Niemoller quote and I mentioned it in the comments and figured that will be the end of it. But then commenter ParatrooperJJ says the FBI just checks the fingerprints and discards them after they come back clean. That set off my alarms because just a few days ago this came out:
FBI effort will build biggest biometric database
The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world’s largest computer database of peoples’ physical characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad.
Digital images of faces, fingerprints and palm patterns are flowing into FBI systems in a climate-controlled, secure basement here.
Next month, the FBI intends to award a 10-year contract that would significantly expand the amount and kinds of biometric information it receives.
And in the coming years, law enforcement authorities around the world will be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars and perhaps even the unique ways people walk and talk to solve crimes and identify criminals and terrorists.
The FBI will also retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law.
If the technology exists it will be used, data obtained will be kept, used, and abused. The features will creep into areas that were promised would never happen. Remember that NICS records were supposed to be destroyed and then Janet Reno kept them for “audit purposes”. Then they used those “audit records” to see if suspected terrorists had purchased firearms. My SS card says “FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES–NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION”. None of my childrens SS cards have any such markings. It used to be something like a $10K fine if anyone tried to use your SSN for anything other than tax purposes. No so anymore.
We are creating all the mechanisms necessary for an effective police state. Remember what Milton Friedman said.
[Mostly this is a rant because I’m pissed. I don’t particularly blame the NRA-ILA or any other pro-gun group. Political reality is significantly different from gut response. The following is 95% emotion and its to just get it out of my system.]
The instant Bush signed the NICS Improvement Bill into law we get this crap:
President George W. Bush signed the nation’s first new gun-control legislation in 14 years Tuesday to help keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy immediately announced she would take her crusade to the next step.
This time, she and others want to close the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows some dealers to sell firearms without background checks.
[…]
Schumer agreed that the next item on the gun-control agenda would be to require background checks in every gun sale, but predicted that would be harder to get passed because of opposition by the National Rifle Association. The law signed Tuesday, in contrast, had NRA support.
Many of us in the gun violence prevention movement are excited about the year ahead.
America is turning a corner on the gun issue, because the people are finally being heard.
Today, President Bush signed into law the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 – what some have called “the first major new gun control bill in more than a decade.”
[…]
Brady background checks have stopped an estimated 1.4 million people from legally buying guns since 1994, but background checks are only as good as the records in the system.
[…]
Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from common-sense gun laws that will reduce the toll of 30,000 gun deaths every year in this country.
- Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from preventing suspected terrorists from walking out of a gun store or a gun show fully armed.
- Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from getting a background check for every single gun purchase they make, including at gun shows (this is closing the gun show loophole).
- Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from strengthening Brady background checks to make sure that “prohibited purchasers” like felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and domestic abusers are denied guns at the point of sale.
- Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from reporting lost or stolen guns to the police in a timely manner.
- Law-abiding Americans (who aren’t in the legal gun business) have nothing to fear from being prevented from buying guns in bulk purchases.
- Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from keeping military-style assault weapons out of most civilian hands, reserving them for military and law enforcement use only.
If you “compromise” with the Devil don’t be surprised if you get burned.
Sean’s words need to be repeated here:
What typically gets lost, and lost deliberately, is the meaning of the word ‘compromise’. In a compromise, both sides gain or lose bargaining points in a mutually acceptable, if not optimal fashion. In the gun control debate, the meaning of compromise is twisted to, “Okay, we’ll only take half your guns, this time.” The pro-RKBA folks are never even offered anything in return. This is a variation of the slippery slope that I call “Zeno’s Paradox of Lost Rights”. As with the paradox of motion, the remaining scope of the Second Amendment is progressively halved, and halved again. The illusion is that we never lose the right, because there is always the remaining half. The Theory of Limits suggests otherwise.
Sean Flynn
6/15/98
If McCarthy, Schumer, and their ilk were asking me to compromise my initial position would be that they get the death penalty under 18 USC 242. The only people that aren’t allowed to own weapons are those that are locked up or are unable feed themselves. If they are safe enough to be allowed on the streets with a 2000 pound car, a full tank of gasoline and a book of matches then they are safe enough to be allowed a M60, a M60 Patton, or, with suitable storage facilities, TNWs. And finally the 2nd Amendment guarantees the RKBA and since a right someone can’t afford to exercise, just like a right to an attorney, isn’t really worth anything the Federal Government should subsidize arms for those that want them but cannot afford them.
We start our negotiations there.
And now that I’m got that out of the way let’s talk about those words from Helmke:
So, 1.4 million people were stopped from legally purchasing firearms. Since there are about 200 million adults in the country and only about 40% own firearms that must mean that about one out of every 60 people that tried to by a firearm were legally prohibited. And that’s not good enough for him. When will it be good enough? One out of 20? One out of 10? No. We know what the real number he is looking for, one out one.
Those “30,000 gun deaths” include justified, even praiseworthy, shootings by police and private citizens. Either Helmke is deliberately misleading or he thinks the life of a thug who put an innocent life in immediate jeopardy of death or permanent injury is just as valuable as the innocent life. In either case he is not to be trusted.
If suspected terrorists are to be prevented from owning guns, the list of suspected terrorists is created without due process as currently is the case, then President Hillary could declare all NRA members, or all even private citizens, suspected terrorists and we all are screwed. Helmke is an enemy of the U.S. Constitution if he supports the disemboweling of both the 2nd and the 4th Amendments.
As for the other bullet items, except for the last item, those can only be implemented if you have a gun registration in place. And we all know that registration always leads to confiscation within at most a few decades.
As for the last bullet item, Helmke has demonstrated he can’t be trusted, so Μολὼν λαβέ.
And because this is what I was listening to while writing this and I think it fits Schumer, McCarthy, and Helmke well; Runnin’ With the Devil by Van Halen:
I live my life like there’s no tomorrow
And all I’ve got I had to steal
Least I don’t need to beg or borrow
Yes I’m living at a pace that kills
Runnin’ with the devil
Runnin’ with the devil
I found the simple life ain’t so simple
When I jumped out on that road
I got no love, no love you’d call real
Ain’t got nobody waiting at home
Runnin’ with the devil
Runnin’ with the devil
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
[Yeah, I know. Everyone has heard this one before. That is most of the reason I have never used it directly before. Today is special however. Check out my next post, Runnin’ With the Devil, people compromised with the Devil to gain temporary “safety” and the ink hasn’t dried before they are pushing for the “next step”.–Joe]
I was reminded of this by today’s QOTD.
Banning light bulbs isn’t enough, of course. I heard mention of this today by Jason Lewis on the radio, and via crypton. There is now talk of requiring remotely (web) controlled thermostats in private homes. The idea is that a utility company be able to remotely alter your thermostat setting, overriding your selected setting, to save energy, you know, for your comrades.
It will happen. Also get ready for total use restrictions– a family of four, for example, will not be allowed to exceed a certain KW/h, or therms, etc., monthly usage without paying large fines. When that fails to make us all happy, safe and comfortable, as it surely will, we can expect something more severe.
We asked for this the second we decided it was OK for government to involve itself in the energy (or any other) industry. Anyone warning of this very thing would of course have been put down as an alarmist, and so here we are.
Once the principle (of private property in this case) has been violated, the only debate possible is over the degree of the violation. There is no principled stand to be taken in favor of any particular degree of violation of a human right. But this has all been said before.
Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.
Milton Friedman
[The U.S. Constitution with its enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights was supposed to do the bulk of the protecting. But of course these days it’s rare that any of the three branches of government even look at the Constitution as a mild suggestion of limits to its reach.–Joe]
The DOJ (the ATF is under the DOJ so it could be them) apparently is interested in what their subjects think about new regulations on AN. My blog posting is number six on Google for their query.
I should have mentioned in my previous post that I have several thousand pounds of ammonium nitrate that I plan to make into explosives. The people at the DOJ need something to get their blood pumping on a Monday, right?
| Domain Name | usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government) | |||||||||||||||||||
| IP Address | 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice) | |||||||||||||||||||
| ISP | US Dept of Justice | |||||||||||||||||||
| Location |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Language | English (U.S.) en-us |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Operating System | Microsoft WinXP | |||||||||||||||||||
| Browser | Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DOJ3jx7bf; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Javascript | version 1.3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Monitor |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Time of Visit | Jan 7 2008 10:46:36 am | |||||||||||||||||||
| Last Page View | Jan 7 2008 10:46:46 am | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Length | 10 seconds | |||||||||||||||||||
| Page Views | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Referring URL | http://www.google.co…ing ammonium nitrate | |||||||||||||||||||
| Search Engine | google.com | |||||||||||||||||||
| Search Words | bush signs law regulating ammonium nitrate | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Entry Page | https://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/12/31/new-ammonium-nitrate-regulations/ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Exit Page | https://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/12/31/new-ammonium-nitrate-regulations/ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Out Click | here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1680: |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Time Zone | UTC-5:00 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visitor’s Time | Jan 7 2008 1:46:36 pm | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Number | 230,817 |
Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master.
Dwight Eisenhower
[My guess is that this year there are only about two or maybe three presidential candidates, none of which are likely to win, that even have a glimmer of this fundamental truth.–Joe]
Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
[I find this very odd. It’s certainly true today, but I would have thought it was different in his time (the mid 1800’s).–Joe]
Ignore for the moment that the Federal Government does not have Constitutional permission to engage in socialized medicine. Look only at results where it has been tried. Kevin tells us about how it’s working out in the U.K.
There are lots of other examples but the first implementation appears to have come from Germany and was a failure as well.
One of the basic problems with socialized medicine is who is spending who’s money. As pointed out by Milton and Rose Friedman in Free to Choose there are four different possibilities (from memory):
On average, the first case is going to result in the best return on any given dollar spent. The person will optimize the result for the available money.
On average, the last case is going to result in the worst return on any given dollar spent. The person has little incentive to limit the amount of money spent and to get a good result for the money spent.
Socialized medicine most closely matches the last case and results in the least efficient spending of money.
Tell all the Democrat candidates for President to shove their illegal plans where the sun doesn’t shine then save on their own health care by getting their colonoscopy for removal of the reams of paper done without sedation.
