Category Archives: Freedom

Quote of the day–Gun Guys

Posted on by

They haul out the tired mantra of “government intrusion on their rights.”

But those are just code words for being selfish and lacking empathy.

Gun Guys
November 8, 2007
Another Child Shot Accidentally as the Gun Lobby Selfishly Refuses to Help Protect Our Kids
[I’ll bet you didn’t know the Bill of Rights was just code words for being selfish and lacking empathy. I didn’t either. Maybe he thinks people with black skin should stay out of white restaurants, whites only swimming pools, and not use drinking fountains intended for whites. Does that mean black skinned people should understand that whites like the Gun Guys shouldn’t be exposed to using the same eating utensils that have been in the mouths of blacks. And swimming in the same water? Isn’t that real lack of empathy for whites? And I’m sure it was being selfish and a lack of empathy for the Aryans when the Allies went to war with Germany just because they were trying to implement a Final Solution for the Jewish Question in Europe.

It seems to me there are a large number of people that seem to believe, at some level, that Governments can’t intrude on rights–that it’s a logical impossibility. They seem to think that governments grant rights and hence if the law changes the right no longer exists. The truth of the matter is, of course, that rights exist irrespective of governments and governments can only infringe, guarantee, and/or protect rights. The Gun Guys mindset is but one example.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Jonathan Swift

Posted on by

For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift
[Governments that forget their true relationship with it’s citizens are on their way to enslaving their subjects.–Joe]

Real ID is in its death throes

Posted on by

I’d like to believe it but I won’t until the coffin has been nailed shut, it’s been cremated, and the ashes dumped in a pig farm lagoon. Here is the story:

“In discussions I participated in with the Department of Homeland Security, they were asked point blank, ‘What will happen to states that don’t participate?'” said Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, who was on the call. “The response was, ‘Nothing will happen. There will be no penalty. You can still get on a plane.'”

[…]

States began defying the feds, passing laws saying that they had no intention of complying with the REAL ID requirements. The federal government retorted that this was fine, but citizens from those states could not use drivers’ licenses to enter federal buildings or board aircraft (which are screened by federal personnel).

In the face of this sort of opposition, DHS extended the deadline for compliance to 2009, and then again to 2013. Now, it could be extended again, and states could get even more time to issue cards for older drivers (apparently less of a security threat).

Whether the new rules are an expedient compromise or a total backpedalling from the goals of REAL ID depends on who you ask. The ACLU, for instance, holds strong views on the matter.

“DHS is essentially whittling Real ID down to nothing—all in the name of denying Real ID is a failure,” said ACLU senior legislative counsel Tim Sparapani. “Real ID is in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps.”

Quote of the day–Edgar A. Suter MD

Posted on by

Utopia is not one of the available solutions to violence in our society. Only incremental improvements are attainable through repeal of victim disarmament laws and through implementation of effectual, affordable measures. Objective assessment of the risks and benefits of various proposals will assist development of rational and effectual public policy. Hysterical, ineffectual, unconstitutional, and merely symbolic measures only squander time, money, and energy that are better devoted to effectual solutions and realistic goals.

Edgar A. Suter MD
Guns in the Medical Literature — A Failure of Peer Review
[Emphasis in the original. I have used this argument (utopia isn’t an option) myself in a gun control debate against a communist. They didn’t really seem to get it. They wanted to keep trying just as they want to keep trying new variations of Marxism; “All we need is to have the right people in government.” I wish I had come back with, “Marxism and gun control was responsible for over 100 million dead last century. Do you want to donate your body to the next attempt at utopia?” –Joe]

Preventing crime

Posted on by

When I read stuff like this:

The gun lobby of course prefers to punish “criminals” who commit crimes or acts of violence, but gun proponents demonstrate no interest in preventing gun violence.

I can’t help but think of things like:

  • We need to prevent slander by removing everyones vocal cords.
  • We need to prevent rape by castrating all men.
  • We need to prevent prostitution by putting chastity belts on all women.
  • We need to prevent child abuse by banning children.
  • We need to prevent bank robberies by taking all the money from banks.
  • We need to prevent car accidents by banning all cars.
  • And most importantly, we need to prevent gun violence by prosecuting government officials (violation of 18 USC 242) and others (violation of 18 USC 241) that conspire to take our guns.

Quote of the day–Jack Chleva

Posted on by

I believe that the shooting sports (unlike such stylishly sanitized designer pursuits as fly fishing for the 90s) serve as the politically incorrect metaphor for that most unpopular of citizens – the Classical Man (as opposed to the Modern Man). As such, when I am asked by one who fears and loathes firearms, why anyone would find fascination in weapons, my answer is, ‘For the same reason that makes you afraid of such things’.

Jack Chleva
Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries Vol. 6, No. 3, March 1998
[I didn’t buy my first firearm until the Clinton’s were elected. I read banned books and I buy banned firearms. I push the envelope because I think it’s the required response. I push back because they started the pushing.–Joe]

Like that is going to help

Posted on by

It’s a pleasant fantasy but the people offering these sort of solutions either don’t understand the problem or don’t want to face reality. From one of our wonderful government laboratories:

Los Alamos Lab developing liquid scanner for airport security

Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are developing a new type of scanner that can distinguish liquids blaring out a warning for bad ones, like explosives, while letting through good ones, like water.

…

They will be able to scan bottles as big as a “magnum-sized champaign bottle,” Espy said.

“Apparently the whole duty-free thing is suffering, and people can’t carry their liquor on airplanes anymore,” Espy said. “It’s been disruptive to commerce. So, that’s one of the benefits of this.”

Software upgrades could add new liquids to the device’s detection list if any new threats arise, she said.

“The nice thing about this system is it’s not tuned to any specific threats,” Espy said. “As new materials of concern arise, it can be adapted to detect those.”

Even after the scanner is in place we still won’t be able to take liquor on airplanes–unless they are going to allow ethanol on board. In which case I need to demonstrate how to make an “explosive” out of ethanol. It would be tough to get a true detonation but in the enclosed space of an airplane cabin it just won’t matter whether the speed of propagation is greater than or less than the speed of sound.

And if they stop letting people take liquid hydrocarbons on board I’ll demonstrate the same sort of thing is possible with bread flour, powdered sugar, or coffee creamer. And when they ban those let them build a scanner that is sensitive to powdered human hair.

And those ideas are all taking the direct “brute force” approach. There are lots of other, much more subtle, ways to defeat airport “security”. TSA is backward for A Security Theater. It’s time we considered the alternatives.

Gun Skool

Posted on by

Some weeks ago, I had mentioned to Joe that I would like to get my NRA Trainer’s certification.  There were classes offered over in Western Washington, and Joe offered to let me stay at his hardened, underground bunker, located beneath a non-descript building in an ordinary part of an obscure town in a crowded part of the state.  In the middle of getting some new gun products photographed, spec.ed, instructions written, and put on-line, I drove to Western Washington for some courses, created by the NRA, in Instructor Training, Basic Pistol instruction and Home Firearm Safety instruction.  That was three days of intense (for me) study, from 8:00 AM to after 6:00PM Friday and Saturday, and 8:00 to about 5:30 on Sunday.

The first exercise of the weekend involved demonstrating that we could show another person how to safely load and unload five different long-gun actions and three handgun actions (aced that–for me it was akin to asking a chef to demonstrate his ability to prepair scrambled eggs and dry toast, but enough bragging).  We then had to score at least 90% on four separate written exams and shoot at least 50% on a pistol qualification course—shooting from a distance of 25 yards at a nine-inch target, from three specific standing positions including one-handed.  Apparently, most pistol shooters don’t shoot much beyond 10 or 15 yards, but I was unaware of this, having tried my hand at 100 yards. 100 yards is a bit of a “hail Mary” exercise with a common handgun. At 25 yards you have to take your time and concentrate, but it is very much doable.  I’d have scored higher than my 63% if I’d either used my own guns or if I’d known in advance that their pistols were regulated for a “bull’s-eye” zero at 25 (sights held on the bottom of the round bull’s-eye to hit in the center of the bull’s-eye– ask me if you want to know why that’s a great idea, which it is) because I was holding the sights on the center of the bull. Most of my misses therefore went high. Most of us in the class were “combat” shooters (they’d make fun of that by saying we were from the “Billy-Bob School of Running and Gunning”) and so we were a little bit unprepared for the slower, more relaxed, more skeletal-supported bull’s-eye style they use in the NRA basic pistol classes.

I passed everything with flying colors, except for the second written exam—I was completely unprepared to “study for the tests”.  I hadn’t been in college for almost 30 years.  I was listening intently to the instructor, and was confident of knowing everything he was talking about, plus I had already scored 96% (I think it was) on the first written exam.  Trouble was, I didn’t have the precise verbiage they wanted as answers on the second test—the Three Principles of this, and the Eight Steps of that, etc..  One instructor was impressed enough that he let me take the test over, which I passed with 100%.  The trouble with that, however, was it took time away from my studying the material for the other classes, so in spite of taking no time for anything but studying, eating and sleeping a little bit, I was behind the curve so to speak, for the whole weekend.  I was a hair trigger from bugging out on more than one occasion, but I am very glad I stuck it through.  As soon as I receive my official certification I’ll be qualified to teach NRA basic courses in Pistol and Home Firearm Safety.

Aside from being impressed by the quality of both the teachers and the students at Kenmore Range, there was a lot I never knew about the NRA, in spite of having been a member for years, and I gained a new respect for the organization.  It turns out they started for very much the same reasons Joe started the Boomershoot— to increase the number of competent shooters for the times they may be required to defend life and Liberty.  The whole political persona we all know, came much later, and to this day is only a very small part of the NRA.  They are mostly a marksmanship advancement, training, and competitive shooting facilitator, having founded Camp Perry and a number of other excellent ranges, and developed a comprehensive and effective training program.

 

To you NRA phone solicitors and mailing program developers out there:  You really should spend more time talking to your perspective members about all the things, in addition to the political wing, the NRA does to promote American marksmanship.

 

The weekend was rough, but I highly recommend NRA Trainer education to anyone interested in teaching gun handling or shooting skills.  Thank you, Joe, for the use of the hardened bunker.  I could not have done so well without it, and the broadband pipe you provided also.

 

As an aside, I left my wallet and checkbook, everything, at a rest stop near Dusty, WA on my way to the West Side.  I didn’t know about it until Joe informed me as I was entering the Seattle area.  It turns out that someone from the West Side was driving to Moscow, ID where I work, picked it up, called my place of work, and hand delivered it.  Sort of renews one’s faith in Mankind, that does.  That person could have easily relieved me of many thousands of dollars, to say nothing of depriving me of 100% of my ID and other creds.

Prosecutors and the law

Posted on by

Sharp as a Marble has a link to where a prosecutor talks about the D.C. ban on firearms being a good thing because:

The statute was also a mechanism for locking up individuals perceived as violent, but against whom other cases could not be brought for whatever reason.

This sort of thing happens all the time. I know that a certain county sheriff in Idaho broke up a car theft ring and was unable to find anything on the person they thought was the leader of the group other than the unregistered machine gun they found in his home.*

It’s just another tool in their toolbox. The same thing with the income tax. The feds sent Al Capone to prison on income tax evasion rather than murder and bootlegging which were almost for certain the more appropriate charges.

I fully understand the temptation and desire for such tools. I’m sure there are many instances where law enforcement and prosecutors are completely and totally convinced the suspect is guilty but the witnesses are too scared to testify, someone messed up preserving the evidence, or some such thing. But having such tools available leads to their wrongful use. Whose perception that an individual is violent can be trusted? The potential for racism alone is reason enough to avoid giving these tools to prosecutors.

Ayn Rand nailed it:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

And don’t forget Huffman’s rule of firearms law:

Firearms law are so complex, victimless, and nonsensical that almost every firearms owner breaks multiple laws without knowing it. A general rule to compute the earned prison time for crimes committed is to multiply the number of years of activity in the shooting sports by five.

A landlord of mine once had a girlfriend that was an interning law student at a Federal prosecutor’s office. I mentioned something about the changes in Federal law regarding explosives and how previously manufacture and use within the borders of a single state were outside the domain of the Feds but SEA claimed to change that. I thought that as a law student she would recognize the interstate commerce clause was the basis for the Feds being able to even talk about the regulation of explosives. Intrastate activity is supposedly beyond the reach of the Feds. But she was almost giddy about the changes because the new law would “invalidate tons of legal precedent”. As a future Federal prosecutor she had just been given a whole bunch of new tools and she was eager to use them. I dropped the subject.

I regard this abuse of power as one of the most obvious symptoms of a deficiency in our constitution. There is no explicit means for punishment of members of our government who pass or enforce laws that violate the constitution. There is a law that says they can’t legally do that in certain cases, 18 USC 242, but who enforces it? Federal prosecutors. But you can’t expect them to enforce it upon themselves. It just isn’t going to happen. There needs to be a much more general provision enforceable by some other means. The “Second Amendment reset” is just too drastic for the situation at hand.

* The Feds refused to prosecute. I suspect this decision may have been influenced by some previous “history” between Idaho and the Feds. This wasn’t too long after Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris were found not-guilty of nearly all the charges against them and there were some instances where several Idaho counties were threatening and/or actually were (Lon Horichi is just one example) prosecuting some Federal employees of various types.

Drawing a line in the sand

Posted on by

I tried to post this as a comment to Kevin’s post but it was automatically rejected with the explanation of having too many links. No matter, I was going to make a post out of it anyway. I’ll provide a link to here from Kevin’s comment section. I won’t object to comments here but please consider whether the comment really should go on Kevin’s blog.

Bilgeman wrote:

I ask you…what would you say of the manufacturers of crematoria, the producers of Zyklon-B, and the merchants of barbed wire who actively sought, and jealously protected, their government contracts with the 3rd Reich?

To a lesser degree businesses that sell to many government entities in the U.S. today are no different. But Barrett rifles and others have refused to do business with certain government organizations because of the laws that infringe on the civil rights of the people.

What I would say to those businesses is that I understand their reluctance to refuse to participate (in part, I was fired from my job because of this). I also read Hitler’s Willing Executioners and understand how an entire culture can go “sour” and make it difficult for people/business to stand up to the thugs in power. How many individuals/businesses refuse to sell products that aid in the war on some drugs? Or bite their tongue even though they know the war on people that smoke cigarettes is morally wrong but personally convenient? It’s very difficult to draw a line and say, “This is the limit, I will tolerate this, and beyond that I will cease to be a part of it or even actively fight it.” And it is very, very difficult to find and adhere to the line drawn beyond which you will disobey the law and endure the threat of government violence against you and/or your family. It is because of this that I wrote my essay on Civil Disobedience (see also this effort of mine).

I wrote my essay before I became a NRA certified firearms instructor in personal protection and was only a little surprised we were told to teach the importance of setting a limit and knowing what action you will take if that limit is crossed. This “drawing of the line in the sand” is very, very important. One instructor put it to me this way, “It’s far more important to know when to draw than how fast you can draw.” This lesson is applicable to far more things that most people know. Understanding this could eliminate all the “frog in the boiling water” scenarios. Governments grow out of control because people haven’t set a limit and said, “If these conditions are violated then the system has crashed and it’s time to press the reset button.” In a somewhat obscure way our Bill of Rights is such a line in the sand but the critical second portion of the rule wasn’t put in place. That second portion is what action you will take if that limit is crossed. If I could go back in time to the time of the writing of our constitution and influence it’s development I would insist provisions for this second portion was just as critical as enumerated powers and guarantees of rights.

This lesson is something I believe should be taught in our schools. And it’s not just because of the personal protection and “out of control government” issues. “Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them” is another way to say the same thing and perhaps enables people to see far more applications of this vital tool. The more widespread the application of this lesson the more likely it will be applied in the more difficult situations.

Draw your lines in the sand early when you have the time and a cool head. Your life or even the lives of millions may depend on it.

Quote of the day–The Armed Canadian

Posted on by

The odds of my politicians destroying me depend precisely on whether or not my cabinet is stuffed with guns. It is very hard to impose their will on me by force when I have the means to resist by the same means. Every single totalitarian government and dictator throughout history without exception has only managed to acquire and hold their power by first disarming their subjects. Every. Single. One.

The Armed Canadian
October 23, 2007
#6 – On “Assault Weapons” and Control
[Other than a reference to a U.S. gun control law a link to one of my posts was the only other reference. I am honored–this post, while long, is profound. This blog is so new that the link to my blog didn’t show up on my radar. Ry sent me the link and I just now got around to reading the whole post. Thanks Ry and Armed Canadian.–Joe]

Our philosopher

Posted on by

I don’t read as many blogs as a lot of other people do so I can’t say he is the best philosopher on guns and freedom. I can only say he is by far the best philosopher of the bloggers I have read. This post is what made that concept gel for me.


Kevin Baker at the 2007 Gun Blogger Rendezvous–probably thinking about his next post. Larry Weeks from Brownell’s is in the foreground.

Quote of the day–Theodore Dalrymple

Posted on by

Later, I spent several years touring the world, often in places where atrocity had recently been, or still was being, committed. In Central America, I witnessed civil war fought between guerrilla groups intent on imposing totalitarian tyranny on their societies, opposed by armies that didn’t scruple to resort to massacre. In Equatorial Guinea, the current dictator was the nephew and henchman of the last dictator, who had killed or driven into exile a third of the population, executing every last person who wore glasses or possessed a page of printed matter for being a disaffected or potentially disaffected intellectual. In Liberia, I visited a church in which more than 600 people had taken refuge and been slaughtered, possibly by the president himself (soon to be videotaped being tortured to death). The outlines of the bodies were still visible on the dried blood on the floor, and the long mound of the mass grave began only a few yards from the entrance. In North Korea I saw the acme of tyranny, millions of people in terrorized, abject obeisance to a personality cult whose object, the Great Leader Kim Il Sung, made the Sun King look like the personification of modesty.

Theodore Dalrymple
Autumn 2004
The Frivolity of Evil
[Never forget why we fight to defend our right to keep and bear arms.–Joe]

The Frivolity of Evil

Posted on by

I stumbled upon a link while (mostly) lurking in the comments of Kevin’s post.

I may have read it sometime before. I seem to recall the name of the author, Theodore Dalrymple, and certain passages invoke a vague Deja Vu. If I have read it before and forgotten there is a good reason for it. It is very dark and invokes a mood of hopelessness in me. But it is a brutal reminder of why I fight to preserve the right to keep and bear arms and to oppose socialism in all it’s forms. And I thought Uncle had experienced sufficient contact with evil to adequately remind of this.

Read The Frivolity of Evil at the risk of losing your own mental well being. But vigorously insist that people that oppose freedom, who insist on victim disarmament or have even a hint of Marxism in their political leanings read it.

I won’t sleep well tonight, but I thank you Ed “What the” Heckman and Theodore Dalrymple.

Stossel gores Gore

Posted on by

Via email from Stephanie.

I like the part where the scientists who have supposedly been “paid off” are lamenting about not receiving their wheelbarrows full of cash. It’s the same story as us gun bloggers not getting our payoff from the NRA.

It’s telling when someone thinks its money that is the reason someone is opposed to a viewpoint. This is a strong indicator the proponent of the viewpoint is a Marxist. Evidence and logic appear to be irrelevant to these types hence they must resort to some other explanation for people to be opposed to them. Money, the root of all evil, must therefore be the reason.

Marxism has killed and impoverished more people than any other political philosophy yet they keep trying. “Global warming” is just one more tool in their bag of tricks to try and destroy capitalism. It may not be the conscious motive for the masses but I’m certain the people at the top know it’s nothing more than a scam to propel them to power. It’s simply not possible for them to not know the facts if they put any serious effort into researching it.

The best government

Posted on by

Thoreau said, “That government is best which governs least”.

Kevin explains in greater detail.

Quote of the day–John Gilmore

Posted on by

Importantly, we need real financial privacy because the goods and information cost money.  When you buy or sell or communicate, money is going to change hands.  If they can track the money, they can track the trade and the communication, and we lose the privacy involved.

John Gilmore
A transcript of remarks given at the First Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, March 28, 1991
[Jews in the Attic Test again.–Joe]

The test was too hard

Posted on by

If some terrorist gets a bomb through security TSA (A Security Theater) is apparently going to tell them try again because they missed it the first time or three. But since it’s coming from that liberal haven (read “logic impaired”) of San Francisco it all sort of makes sense:

USA Today revealed that a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) report found screeners at SFO failed to find small bomb parts 20 percent of the time during a recent 12-month test.

SFO spokesperson, Mike McCarron, said the failure rate is unacceptable.

But McCarron said the TSA may have simply made the test too hard.

See also these news items on airport security:

This last item is of particular interest because the TSA is telling everyone, “Hide your stuff here, we won’t look there.”

I’ve been harping on this for a long time and I don’t see any evidence to invalidate my conclusions. It’s time to consider alternatives to TSA because what we have now is just Security Theater.

Giving to a charity

Posted on by

Mostly this is for the people at Microsoft that read my blog, but I’m sure there is application in other companies.

Here at Microsoft there is a big push during the month of October to sign people up for charitable donations. I think last year employees donated something like 72 million dollars. I’m pretty sure that is before the matching, dollar for dollar, funds from MS are counted. It is claimed MS employees donate more per capita than any other company.

This whole “giving” thing annoys some people. An argument could be made that is, barely, voluntary socialism. I’m not going to make that argument. Instead I think you just have to choose your charities carefully.

And of course there are organizations like JPFO and SAF that will help in our fight against the bigots that want to take away are civil rights but maybe that isn’t sufficiently “in your face” to suit you. There are other options.

On Saturday evening at dinner at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous Chuck told us his story of being wounded in Iraq and how Soldier’s Angels was such a huge help to him. I was glad I was in position such that nearly no one (I think Barb might have noticed) saw the tears running down my checks as I listened to his story. Barb and I bought $100 worth of raffle tickets but had to sell some of them to someone else because all the tickets were purchased before everyone had a chance to get some. Not only is that a worthy cause but supporting the “baby killers” might be enough to make someone in the Breasts Not Bombs crowd perk up and if you have seen any of the pictures you know that would be a remarkable and worthwhile accomplishment.

But if you want the ultimate slap in the face for the PC crowd you can play out this fantasy of mine–When you are asked to tell your story about why you donate you tell them its because you like to reach out and touch people you wouldn’t have otherwise been able to. You don’t need to tell them you donate to Snipers Online–unless you really want to. They are already in the Microsoft database, Ry put them there a year or two ago.

Quote of the day–John Adams

Posted on by

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.

John Adams
[One could make the argument that this is more true today than when Adams said it 200 years ago.–Joe]