Another victim of a repressive government:
…
On Monday, L/Cpl James Piotrowski was jailed by a court martial for handling a stolen SA80.
He pleaded guilty to possessing and handling it after another soldier stole it from Wellington barracks in London in 2004.
He didn’t steal it. He didn’t fire it. He only handled it. I can’t image why the politicians that create such laws are still allowed to see the sun and breath fresh air.
Benjamin at reasonablenut asked this last month and I’m just now getting caught up with things enough to respond:
It’s a simple question, really: What constitutes the offense where you would not rely on the authorities?
-Rape/killing of your wife/girlfriend?
-Fucking with your kid in any way?
-Untowards aggressive action against your person?
-Targeting your specific property?
At what point do you say “fuck it”, and find and kill the motherfucker?
It’s only a little more than a hint in his post so I will explicitly spell it out. This is not about stopping an attack in progress. This is about truly “taking the law into your own hands”. You are judge, jury, and executioner for someone you believe to be worthy of nothing more than pushing up daises. What is the criteria that would cause you to disobey the law and take another human life because you thought it was the right thing to do?
Good question. Timothy McVeigh had an answer. I think his threshold and his execution were severely flawed however. As he said while in prison awaiting “the needle” he should have read Unintended Consequences before, rather than after, destroying the Murrah Federal Building.
Mahatma Gandhi was faced with similar problems and used alternatives that Ben didn’t really want us to consider. It’s not entirely fair to limit someone else in the solution a to particular problem but that is the way Ben has phrased it. This is actually kind of a pet peeve of mine and Raymond has commented on this recently as well. You really need to isolate what the problem is rather than focusing on the implementation of your solution.
If, in the cases above, the problem might be described as one of eliminating “a threat to society” it’s possible this can be accomplished in ways other than to directly murder them. For example you might be creative enough to trick him into a gun battle with the police. Long term those always go poorly for the individuals. The last minutes of Bonnie and Clyde are particularly illustrative. You might be clever enough to frame the scumbag with a crime the police are particularly interested in solving or the attack on a powerful drug dealer who have their own system of “justice” that achieves the desired results.
If the problem might be described as punishment rather than elimination of the threat then you might be able to eliminate their ability to be employed. For example child porn on the computer of a grade school teacher pretty much means the end of that career. When they get a new job exploit another vulnerability and eliminate that line of work. Continue as needed until MacDonald’s won’t hire them because they are always vomiting on the job (syrup of Ipecac does remarkable things).
I guess what I’m really going to saying here is that similar to some of the other people Ben asked this same question I’m going to wimp out. Not because I haven’t put a lot of thought into it but because I have put a lot of thought into it. Basically we have a social contract that says we don’t take the law into our own hands. If things reach the point where that social contract isn’t being fulfilled by the authorities then we have a different problem and the individual that really should be pushing up daises is probably much lower in the queue of people you need to be dealing with. So with that in mind I would like to refer Ben to a different page of mine. What is the threshold that you decide the social contract has been broken and needs to be “forcefully renegotiated”?
I grew up just a few miles from where Lewis and Clark went through Idaho on their way to and from the Pacific Ocean. Lewis and Clark were a prominent feature in Idaho History taught in the eight grade. I have listened to books on tapes about them and Barb and I have stopped at lots of historical landmarks and a few museums along the Lewis and Clark trail in Montana and Idaho. It was an amazing journey with only one man lost, probably due to an appendicitis rupture, through hostile native American country (the Sioux in particular) as well as incredibly friendly native Americans (the Nez Perce as well as others), starvation as well as an excess of food, and dangerous animals (read about their experience with grizzly bears!). Thomas Jefferson made an excellent choice in Meriwether Lewis for the leader of the journey but screwed up in the handling of his return. Lewis probably should have been sent back out on another trip rather than being given a desk job as a governor. Lewis ended up committing suicide just a couple years after returning from his historic trip.
I’m reminded of all this by the following from the Washington Post:
“What we have ahead of us represents a challenge significantly greater than when we first went to the moon,” Griffin said recently in a speech.
New classes of astronauts will have to practice flying in a vehicle quite different from the shuttle and learn how to extract resources such as oxygen from the moon’s soil. They will be taught to grow vegetables in lunar greenhouses and conduct geological tests on the moon’s surface. Already, engineers at United Space Alliance are studying how a crew will be able to train aboard the spacecraft on a three-year trip to Mars. Eventually, Mars-bound astronauts will have to learn how to extract fuel and other resources from Mars’ surface.
“The requirement to live off the land will be crucial to our future in space, just as it was to Lewis and Clark,” Griffin said recently.
There will be some crucial differences in the journey to Mars versus to the Pacific Ocean via the Missouri and Columbia rivers. In some ways we know a lot more about what is between Earth and Mars than the men of Lewis and Clark’s expedition knew before their trip. But then L&C could turn around and come back at almost any time if the going got too rough. They never had to worry about where their next breath of fresh air was going to be found, water was never a problem, and food was only rarely a problem. Even when they were at their most distance point from their origin, the mouth of the Columbia, they could have just waited for the next ship to stop in and pay for a ride home. Mars explorers will face larger challenges but will probably have to do less “thinking on their feet”. The brain power of thousands of support staff on earth will be only a few minutes away as long as their radios work.
I wish them luck and wish I could go with them. James and I, as well as other friends, have often fantasized about starting over someplace other than Earth. If it were up to us we would create a new place to live where the rules were extraordinary few and the freedoms vast. A place where the Bill of Rights were adhered to rather than ignored. Where government was truly limited to the most minimal amount absolutely required. Where free markets and free ideas were something to be celebrated rather than repressed.
This isn’t off topic, so stay with me for a moment–James sent me an email yesterday saying:
Ok, Meredith is insisting that I read some Heinlein. Not reading him is apparently a great offense. She’s got where I should start narrowed down to The Past Through Tomorrow, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. So I’m cross-referencing them by you to see what you think I should read first. Thanks.
I have been trying to get him to read Heinlein for about 15 years now. I saved all my Heinlein books for my children hoping they would enjoy them as much as I did. No luck. None of my kids would read more than a chapter or two before getting bored. Now James is almost 22 years old and “Meredith” has more influence over him than his father ever did. I’m a little bit envious but I like this “Meredith” already and I have never met her or had any contact with her. Just a few things James has told us about her. Heinlein had a huge influence on me and my personal philosophy. My recommendation to James from that short list of Heinlein books? The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It’s unlikely I will live to see the revolution as envisioned by Heinlein in this book but the dream that my children may live to see it or something similar and enjoy the fruits of it please me. Freedom is embedded in the spirit of humans and repression of that is only a short term accomplishment. Thank you Meredith for helping me to keep James on track.
Israel will have no contact with the Palestinian Authority, which is a hostile entity, and will work toward preventing any entrenchment of the Hamas government’s rule.
Anyone who fires a rocket and anyone who participates in terror acts will be dealt with without hesitation.
Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
April 9, 2006
Israel exerts diplomatic, military pressure on Hamas
Reuters
[With nearly all the foreign aid to Palestine cut off and Hamas unable to pay the government workers and many people about to go hungry things may get very “interesting” soon. When people get hungry their motivation for “less than lawful” activities is dramatically increased. With Israel ready, willing, and able to respond to these “less than lawful” activities there is likely to be significant bloodshed in the near future and most of the blood will be Palestinian.–Joe]
They kill innocent men, women and children to achieve their objective. These folks cannot be appeased. We can’t hope that nice words will change their point of view.
And so the decision I made right off the bat is we will find them, and we will hunt them down, and we will bring them to justice before they hurt America again.
President George W. Bush
President Discusses Global War on Terror at Kansas State University
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas
January 23, 2006
Things in Chicago and Washington D.C. could be worse I guess. This guy had just a single cartridge (they say bullet exposing their ignorance but from the context it’s a cartridge):
Bandar Seri Begawan – A 27-year-old Indonesian man was sentenced to five years imprisonment and three strokes of whipping by the Bandar Magistrate’s Court yesterday after he pleaded guilty to possession of an unlicensed bullet.
The defendant, Andriyadi was convicted of possessing a three-cm by one-cm bullet without a: licence issued by the licensing officer. It is an offence punishable under rule 17(l) of the Arms and Explosives Rule of the Arms and Explosives Act, Chapter 58.
He got caught when he tried to get on an airplane:
The defendant then took his wallet out and placed it in the X-ray machine.
As the wallet was screened, one of the airport security officers noticed something that looked like a bullet inside the defendant’s wallet.
The defendant was asked to take out the contents of his wallet which he did witnessed by the airport security officers.
Asked by the airport security officers about the bullet, the defendant admitted that the bullet belonged to him. The bullet was sent to the Royal Brunei Armed Forces where upon examination, the bullet was found to be a live bullet which had not been used before.
IMHO the wrong person is getting the whipping and the prison sentence.
We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
I saw an ex-marine buddy of mine back down two Seattle Seahawks in a bar once — scariest thing I have ever seen. This guy is only about 5’8″, the Seahawks just towered over him. Things escalated to the point where they said, “We are going to mop the floor with you and what do you think you are going to do about it?” The ex-marine eyes are just as black as death and he said, “I don’t know, but we’ll find out if you try.”
This was the perfect thing to say. It didn’t challenge them, and it wasn’t submission (although submission and running might have been a good way out for most people). It drew a line for them and told them there WOULD be a response if they stepped over it. His body language made it clear that he would respond. The Seahawks backed down — they didn’t feel a need to find out what the response might be.
Greg Hamilton (paraphrased)
Self Defense Instructor
February 5, 1997
The successful imposition of “gun control has not stabilized Guatemala politically. In effect, “gun control” ensures that only the wealthy may lawfully own firearms. However, they tend to settle political problems with firearms. What the “gun control” laws achieved – some 90 years after the first such was enacted – was to clear the way for mass murder.
Lethal Laws — “Gun Control” is the Key To Genocide
Page 229
by Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice
Copyright 1994
ISBN 0-96442304-0-2
The 2005 edition of the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide provides information designed to help you comply with all the laws and regulations governing the manufacture, importation, and the distributions of firearms and ammunition.
Carl J. Truscott
Special Message From the Director
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Washington, DC 20226
ATF Publication 5300.4
[With nearly 250 pages of Federal law and regulation it appears either I or someone else misunderstand the meaning of “shall not be infringed.” I can think of better ways to help me comply than publishing this tome.–Joe]
I got an email from someone that works at the Hanford site for an organization other than Pacific Northwest National Laboratory which has close ties to Hanford as well. He said Boomershoot.org is blocked from his work. Interesting…. I must have quite a reputation. Or else I just flatter myself. I’m not sure which.
I know it is blocked from Xenia’s school. I don’t know the reason there.
A friend who works at Cingular told me, “The website was blocked because of relating to Violence…” I’m insulted by that.
Although I forget who it was someone told me it was blocked from their work access because of related to criminal activities or some such thing. Now that I am really insulted about.
I like to think these things are, as I suggest in the FAQ, because some Puritan is afraid that someone, someplace, is having fun.
Gun bans, knife bans, surveillance cameras everywhere, and now the National ID Card has passed both the House of Lords and Commons. There were some compromises made that may allow saner minds to prevail before implementation but it’s still bad news. No good can come of a National ID card. The U.K. is making significant progress toward a police state.
Could you imagine the laughter that would result if people claimed the slippery slope of gun control would result in banned knives? A political world where “assault weapon” bans include not just pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonet lugs but kitchen knives is just ridiculous, right? Wrong. Check out what is happening in the U.K.:
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase – and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
The research is published in the British Medical Journal.
The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.
…
The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.
French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.
A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.
The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.
“The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.”
“We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect.”
…
Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.
“The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.”
“Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.”
“An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.”
“The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives.”
I’m having difficulty modeling what is going on in these peoples minds. Making a knife is not like building a Pentium 4 integrated circuit. You can’t shut down a few factories and expect knifes to disappear from the hands of people. How long have people been making knives? Something on the order a million (or two) years, right? Do these people believe the technology for knife making can be restricted? Do they believe if they ban knives people will stop making them?
The best model I can come up with that there is some sort of mass insanity that has taken hold of these people. We’ve long known that anti-gun people have mental problems. When these people have achieved their goals of banning guns the mental problems don’t go away–they merely find a new obsession and knives are the most visible target.
I just noticed an interesting search hit on my blog. Someone in the Texas Attorney General is researching Tannerite. It doesn’t look like it was a casual search either. They looked as deep as the first 60 Google hits.
I’m not a lawyer but from my reading of the law in some states the use of Tannerite is illegal without special licensing. The Tannerite web site appears to claim this is not true. If you use Tannerite please get a legal opinion you can trust before using it in your political jurisdiction.
Domain Name state.tx.us ? (United States)
IP Address 204.64.42.# (Texas Attorney General)
ISP STATE OF TEXAS GENERAL SERVICES COMMISSION
Location
Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts)
State : Texas City : Austin Lat/Long : 30.2779, -97.7379 (Map) Language English (United States)en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor
Resolution : 800 x 600 Color Depth : 32 bits Time of Visit Mar 29 2006 6:42:35 am
Last Page View Mar 29 2006 6:44:43 am
Visit Length 2 minutes 8 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://www.google.co…en&lr=&start=50&sa=N
Search Engine google.com
Search Words tannerite
Visit Entry Page http://blog.joehuffm…08-89f4fcb3a234.aspx
Visit Exit Page http://blog.joehuffm…08-89f4fcb3a234.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-6:00
Visitor’s Time Mar 29 2006 8:42:35 am
Visit Number 70,181
Nowadays a citizen can hardly distinguish between a tax and a fine, except that the fine is generally much lighter.
G.K. Chesterton
1992 Daily Curmudgeon Calendar
A naive writer is advocating gun control in the student newspaper at the University of Pennsylvania. My responses:
In the comments:
Just one question, “Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?” If no, which I’m certain is the result, then I have to question your motivation for advocating restrictions on personal defensive tools.
Joe Huffman
E-mail: dailypenn@joehuffman.org
Occupation: Software Engineer
Location: Redmond Washington
Via email:
To the Editor: Just one question on gun control
Regarding “Rachel Truchil: Gun control will stem homicide uptick”
Restrictions on firearms is an appealing approach to violent crime but you have to ask yourself just one question, “Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?” The answer is no. With all of the gun control laws throughout history it cannot be conclusively demonstrated even one has made the average person in that political jurisdiction safer.
With that result you must realize that restrictions on weapons means you are preventing innocent, law abiding, people from obtaining the means to defend themselves from violent predators. I’m certain this is not the intended results. Please reconsider your calls for gun control. You are only creating a safer environment for the people that will obtain illegal guns as quickly and easily as people currently find access to illegal recreational drugs.
See https://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/just-one-question/ for more details.
Joe Huffman
Voice: 208-301-4254
University of Idaho ’77
University of Washington ’85
Senior Software Engineer
Every time, everyplace someone advocates gun control we must show their audience the folly of their ways. We must legally exterminate this threat to human safety.
Update: I just sent an email to P-I columnist Robert L. Jamieson Jr. about his editorial here asking Just One Question.
Update2: I just sent an email to Seattle Times columnist Nicole Brodeur about her opinion here asking Just One Question.
Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die.
Abdul Raoulf
Islamic cleric, who is considered a moderate.
March 24, 2006
LifeSiteNews.com
[This attitude is something the entire world must address.–Joe]
Ry tells us of the solution that you just know is the Microsoft way. The City of Redmond, in their infinite wisdom and oneness with Mother Earth, has declared that when new office buildings are built that only 70 parking spaces may be created for every 100 offices. This is to encourage car pooling, public transit, and bicycles instead of the evil, single passenger, internal combustion engine. The Microsoft solution? Valet parking for their employees. The parking garage physically has enough space for the cars if the lanes between the parking spaces are utilized as well as the parking spaces. The valet service parks the cars wherever there is empty space and shuffles the cars as necessary to allow people in and out of the parking spots. Of course it is a waste of resources to pay all these people to just shuffle cars when the people driving the cars would have been happy to do it themselves. But the City of Redmond made that a necessity and simultaneously made themselves looks like fools–which they are. Yeah for Microsoft–demonstrating the law of Unintended Consequences to the pinheads in the City of Redmond government.
Now if Ry’s wish is granted and Microsoft builds a facility in Orofino Idaho I’d be really thrilled.
The religion of Islam is one of tolerance, therefore, if he recants his Christian faith, he will not be executed.
Ansarullah Mawlazezadah
Trial judge in the case of Abdul Rahman an Afghani former medical aid worker and Christian convert from Islam.
March 24, 2006 LifeSite
The same thing that always happens when people without guns go up against people with guns.
Eric Finch
A character in the movie V for Vendetta.
[James and I simultaneously turned and looked at each other, for the only time during the movie, when this line was spoken. After the movie James said, “I’m surprised they had the balls to make that movie.”–Joe]