Category Archives: Gun Rights

Straw sales of Title II toys

Posted on by

Ry nails this one:

The private military company Blackwater has found an unusual way to skirt federal laws that prohibit private parties from buying automatic weapons. Blackwater bought 17 Romanian AK-47s and 17 Bushmasters, gave ownership of the guns to the Camden County sheriff and keeps most of the guns at Blackwater’s armory in Moyock.

Unusual, as in, illegal. Not only are these straw purchases, but they’re straw purchases of Title II firearms. Good for me, not for thee.

One might conclude this little arrangement might not last much longer:

The agreement between Blackwater and the Sheriff’s Office could be an illegal straw purchase, said Richard Myers, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A straw purchase, Myers said, is when one person fills out the federal firearms registration form to obtain a weapon for another person’s use.

“I prosecuted several when I was with the U.S. attorney,” Myers said. “If I were Blackwater’s attorney, I would be concerned about whether this is a genuine purchase or a straw purchase.”

Sheriff Perry said he did not consult a lawyer about the agreement until recently, when the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI inquired about the arrangement.

My guess is the Feds will “decline to prosecute” and ignore the whole thing. Those laws weren’t really intended to apply to everyone. Just the people the Feds want to keep in their place.

It would amuse me if the Feds do push the issue and Blackwater and friends (the local sheriff) use the Heller decision to defend themselves. They would be a great “poster child” for our side on this issue.

Your turn

Posted on by

If you haven’t already done so you should make yourself heard on the issue of firearms in National Parks. Our opponents are not quiet on the topic and we must not be either. Here is what the bigots are saying:

The NRA Wants Loaded Guns in Parks. What do YOU Want?

That’s right, guns in parks. LOADED guns in parks. For some reason, the NRA thinks it’s a great idea to let anyone and everyone possess loaded weapons in our national parks. Visitor safety? Who cares, right? You care. And you know that our current policies are smart and sound, and protect the rights of gun owners and visitors’ safety equally. Allowing loaded guns in parks poses a threat to wildlife, park visitors, and puts our already over-burdened park rangers at even greater risk. The Bush Administration has opened up the regulations for comment. If they want comments, let’s not disappoint them. Submit your comments TODAY and tell them to keep the current regulations in place. Take action!

Here is what they are suggesting people say on the topic:

Millions of visitors visit our national parks each year. They visit the parks because they offer a glimpse into America’s heritage. They offer the unique opportunity for families to experience peace and reflect in a safe environment. But opening the national parks to loaded weapons could change that forever.

Today’s national security threats make the protection of these iconic places and the millions of people from around the world who visit them a serious concern deserving of special vigilance. Requiring guns to be stored and unloaded is no more onerous a limitation on the rights of law-abiding citizens than requiring them to be searched or pass through a metal detector to enter a federal building.

We cannot put the safety of visitors at risk because of the political agenda of one organization. I urge you to keep the current regulations in place.

There is a big difference between the interior of a federal building with armed law enforcement close by and the deep woods of some national park. Here are some hints. These are actual pictures I took in a National Park:


Here is the actual proposed regulation change.

Here, here and here is the best advice I have seen on what to say to our Washington D.C. servants.

Here is the electronic submission form.

Do the right thing and don’t let the bigots win this one.

Quote of the day–Lawrence G. Keane

Posted on by

Many Americans at the time of the constitution’s ratification feared that this national government – to be run by an equally unprecedented office of “President” – would become a new source of tyranny, replacing the British crown they had just overthrown. Accordingly, they sought protections from potential tyranny, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right “to keep and bear arms.” While, to some, the notion may seem quaint today, the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the individual right to bear arms ensured that the new national government would not be able to oppress the American people. That guarantee cannot now be read out of the Bill of Rights simply because times have changed.

Lawrence G. Keane
Brief of The National Shooting Sports Foundation, inc., as amicus curiae in support of respondent.
[For people that claim the U.S. is a “living document” that need not be amended to change the meaning ask them if that applies to the 13th Amendment as well.–Joe]

SCOTUS is releasing opinion(s) today

Posted on by

You can get live blog coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court action this morning if you go here. No guarantee D.C. v. Heller will be released. It could be later this week instead.

Update: Nothing on D.C. v. Heller today. Maybe later this week. Additional hints from the above link:

10:12
 Tom Goldstein –  The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller.   The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.
10:14
 Tom Goldstein –  The Court has announced that it will release opinions against at 10am Wednesday.   Because seven opinions remain, it will almost certainly have one additional day.   Based on past practice, that day likely will be Thursday.

Quote of the day–Albert W. Wallis

Posted on by

The gun control legislation enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 that banned handguns in the city (“D.C. Gun Control Law”) is an effective law enforcement tool that has promoted the public health and safety by reducing the level of handgun violence in the District of Columbia (“District”). Criminological studies evaluating the effects of the D.C. Gun Control Law have proven that it has reduced the rate of firearm homicides and suicides committed in the District.

Albert W. Wallis
Brief of professors of criminal justice as amici curiae in support of petitioners.
[Typically the District of Columbia, even with the draconian gun laws, has the highest murder rate in the U.S. So one has to wonder just how violent the people of the District of Columbia would be if they could own firearms. One must also wonder why just across the river in Virginia, with far easier access to firearms and the right to bear them in public, those people have such a low rate of violence. It is also worthy of note that they refer to firearm homicides and suicides, not total murder and suicide. I take this to mean they are only concerned if someone is killed, justified or not, with a firearm. Murders by people armed with knives, baseball bats, and broken bottles are not of interest. But this is a brief of professors, they don’t work with the real world, that should explain a lot.–Joe]

Letter to the Mayor of Montesano

Posted on by

As widely reported the city council of Montesano passed an ordinance banning gun owners from city parks. The mayor wisely vetoed it. Send your thanks to him. I did:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 2:21 PM
To: ‘mayor@montesano.us’
Subject: Thanks for vetoing the ordinance discriminating against gun owners.

What was the council thinking? Once they had established a precedent of discriminating against constitutionally protected individuals carrying firearms were they then going to expand the list of undesirables to Jews, homosexuals, and people involved in mixed race marriages?

Thank you for doing the right thing. 

Joe Huffman
Kirkland, Washington

Advertising your bitterness

Posted on by

The Apex of the Triangle of Death is selling signs to advertise your bitterness:

They have other signs available too.

Akins Accelerator lawsuit

Posted on by

There is an interesting article on the status of Akins and his accelerator in the Tampa Tribune.

I hope the ATF gets kicked in the teeth by the judge and jury.

Quote of the day–M. Carol Bambery

Posted on by

Violent criminals who may view women as easy targets find their jobs far less taxing in communities such as Washington, D.C. Researchers conducting the Institute of Justice Felon Survey confirm the common-sense notion that those wishing to do harm often think closely before confronting an individual who may be armed.

M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent.
[I found 10 quotes to add to my database in this brief. I’m proud to say that of those 126 women state legislators 12 of them were from Idaho.–Joe]

Quote of the day–David B. Kopel

Posted on by

Petitioners implicitly claim that a typical citizen of the District who can pass a criminal records and mental records background check (such as the National Instant Check System) is at serious risk of committing murder. It is hard to imagine how such a population could be considered fit for home rule.

David B. Kopel
D.C. v. Heller
Brief of The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), The International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, Calif., Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, National Police Defense Foundation, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and The Independence Institute as amici curiae in support of respondent.

Quote of the day–Daniel G. Jarcho

Posted on by

The District’s handgun ban is a reasonable and constitutional restriction because handguns are less effective than other firearms for self-defense. Although they are designed to be more lethal than other firearms, handguns are smaller and harder to shoot accurately.

Daniel G. Jarcho
Brief of Violence Policy Center and the police chiefs for the cities of Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Seattle as amici curiae in support of petitioners.
[Yes, several police chiefs publicly announced their bigotry, ignorance of guns, and stupidly signed on to the brief from the VPC. If not for the seriousness of the matter and that some people might actually believe them the entire brief would be entertaining. Just the two sentences above are open for fisking on the following points:

  • There is no constitutional exemption for protection for “less effective” arms.
  • Handguns are not designed to be more lethal than other firearms (I thought the VPC wanted .50-caliber/”assault-weapons”/semi-autos/normal-capacity-magazines/”Saturday-Night-Specials” banned because it they were the most lethal).
  • Handguns are carried by virtually all law enforcement officers in the U.S. because they are effective for self-defense.

Reading the brief I just have to shake my head in wonder at nearly every sentence. They are ignorant of the history firearm technology or hope their revision of it will not be noticed by others. Sometimes consecutive sentences contradict each other. They live in an alternate reality and/or they have mental problems.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Earl Byrd

Posted on by

“We don’t appreciate being heels,” Clark* said, pointing out the pain it takes to tell an elderly widow who is living alone “that even though your husband bought the gun legally and registered it properly, you can’t keep it. Why that makes an innocent citizen a crook.”

It was a theme heard often in D.C. today, and surprisingly, it seems to gall policemen more than anybody else.

“You’re not controlling guns, you’re controlling people,” said Sgt. Jimmy King, a veteran robbery squad investigator.

“Honest citizens, the little old lady who’s not hurting anybody anyway is the real victim. We’re not stopping these bums killing each other, us, or committing armed robberies.”

…

Like most officers, King believes the court is the real answer.

“The court is not enforcing the laws we already have on the books,” he said, explaining: “There’s a law on the books today which allows a five-year additional sentence for any crime committed while armed, but it’s not enforced.”

King’s sentiments were echoed throughout police headquarters and by officers on the streets.

“I don’t know why they bother to make new laws, they don’t enforce the old ones,” said Fourth District Officer Andrew Way as he wrote a parking ticket yesterday.

Earl Byrd
D.C.’s Gun Registration
Wash. Star
Dec. 2, 1976
*Officer David Clark, one of two officers in charge of registration for the Gun Control Section of the D.C. police.
Brief of The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), The International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, Calif., Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, National Police Defense Foundation, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and The Independence Institute as amici curiae in support of respondent in D.C. v. Heller.
[The police in D.C. were not always parroting what the Mayor told them to say.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Steven M. Simpson

Posted on by

A critical step in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of the privileges and immunities of national citizens and of life, liberty, and property is to understand the evils its Framers sought to remedy. Among the many evils those Framers sought to cure, the systematic violation of the freedmen’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms was prominent.

The evidence of such concern is extensive. While Congress was drafting and considering the proposed Fourteenth Amendment and two pieces of interim legislation — the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill and the Civil Rights Bill — it received considerable testimony and evidence regarding the disarming of freedmen by state and local governments and militias.

Steven M. Simpson
D.C. versus Heller
Brief for the Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae in support of respondent.

All power flows from the barrel of a gun

Posted on by

In this country the people have the guns. This gives them the ultimate power. And this is likely to be confirmed on Friday by the SCOTUS. That isn’t the case in some places:

Robert Mugabe gave warning yesterday that he would not cede power if he loses next week’s election to the Opposition in his most explicit statement yet of his refusal to respect the result.

State-controlled media reported his comments to supporters at an election rally, the latest in a series of increasingly menacing threats as Zimbabwe counts down to the June 27 presidential run-off poll. Mr Mugabe’s military-backed regime has been carrying out a campaign of violence aimed at wiping out the opposition vote.

“We fought for this country, and a lot of blood was shed,” Mr Mugabe told his supporters. “We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X. How can a ballpoint fight with a gun?”

Good question. Ask that the next time someone tells you that we don’t need the 2nd Amendment because we have the 1st Amendment.

Dealing with Mayor Nickels

Posted on by

Phil and to a certain extent I have been reporting (and here) on the bigoted Seattle Mayor Nickels who wants to defy state law and ban concealed carry on city owned property.

The Apex of the Triangle of Death (aka the NRA) is giving some attention to this guy. Jump on their suggestions. Do what you can to put an end to this kind of intolerance.

Quote of the day–Richard K. Willard

Posted on by

The Miller court’s approach, which focused only on the relationship between the regulated arms at issue and the Second Amendment’s militia purpose was flawed because that approach would only allow individuals to possess arms suited for military use. Such an approach is obviously troublesome if it would allow private ownership of modern military arms.

Richard K. Willard
D.C. versus Heller
Brief amicus curiae Of The Heartland Institute in support of respondent.
[Indeed! Miller should be expanded to include arms suitable for private self-defense. That isn’t what Willard has in mind but that is what I’m hoping the SCOTUS concludes. Of course Willard, in supporting D.C., is also troubled that individuals should have the right to defend themselves against anything. One can only conclude the relationship between the state and the individual is that of a rancher and his cattle. The rancher dehorns the cattle so they cannot easily defend themselves or seriously injury each other. The rancher takes it upon himself to defend the cattle from predators, provide their food, care for the sick, and to slaughter them as it may suit him.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Jeffrey A. Lamken

Posted on by

For the Framers, the lesson of such uprisings was that “the rebellion of a people against a government established by themselves is not justifiable, even in an extreme case, and can only result in dishonor to the state, and calamity and disgrace to those who participate in it.” 1 Josiah Holland, History of Western Massachusetts 299-300 (Springfield, Bowles & Co. 1855) (emphasis added). Thus, in the Framers’ experience, it was not the possession of arms for personal uses apart from militia service (or against the government) that preserved ordered liberty. It was the States’ access to militias and similar state-controlled forces to protect their citizens that was essential. Modern experience confirms that view.

Jeffrey A. Lamken
January 2008
Brief supporting petitioners of amici curiae American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, Ceasefire NJ, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, Methodist Federation for Social Action, Clifton Kirkpatrick in his capacity as the stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Educational Fund to stop Gun Violence, Freedom States Alliance, American Jewish Congress, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Gray Panthers, Gunfreekids.org, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Illinoisvictims.org, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, Jenna Foundation for Nonviolence, inc., Karla Zimmerman Memorial Foundation, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Council of Jewish Women, New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, DC Statehood Green Party, North Carolinians Against Gun Violence Education Fund, Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, Renée Olumbuni Rondeau Peace Foundation, Root (Reaching Out to Others Together) Inc., Union for Reform Judaism, Virginia Center for Public Safety, Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, and certain individual victims and families of victims of gun violence.
[I suppose they are forced to believe that if they hope to remain consistent. But I’m appalled so many Jewish organizations could sign on to such a belief system. Hitler was elected. The government of Germany of the 1930’s and early 1940’s was established by the people of Germany. Don’t the people that advocate the above doctrine realize what they are saying? There is no case in which the state should be forceably overthrown. Whatever the state decides is also moral and acceptable. They are saying the German Jews, the millions of Russians, Chinese, Laotians, etc. who were murdered by their own government had no right to defend themselves. It was their duty to passively accept their own annihilation. These people have mental problems and must be defeated.–Joe]

Joe’s bus service for girls

Posted on by

Just outside of Seattle last night I picked up Robin (age 12), the daughter of a friend of ours (Karen pictured below), and gave her a ride to Moscow so she could visit a friend of hers for a couple weeks. She wasn’t very talkative but she was bright and friendly. It was a five hour trip and except for the first 90 minutes we each listened to our own iPods.


Daughter Kim, friend Karen, and Ry’s daughter Arden at Boomershoot 2008.
Photo from David who has proclaimed June to be Boomershoot 2008 Photo Month.

Tomorrow morning I have to get up much, much too early, take daughter Kim to work by 6:30, go back to the house to pick up daughter Xenia, then pick up both Ry’s daughters Arden (above) and Anna at 7:15, then pick up Kim at 7:30. The four girls and I then attempt to drive back to Seattle in time for Kim and Xenia to attend a play that starts at 1:00 PM that is a gift from their brother James. The other girls then go back to the east side of the lake to Ry’s fortified compound. Protected with, among other things, a .50 BMG, and I don’t know how many AR-15s, some of which are supressed.

I realize four beautiful girls protected only by one middle-aged, slightly overweight guy with a bum leg is a tempting target but these girls aren’t the helpless types. Ry and I reared these children in Idaho, not one of those sissy places where other people rear their children.

Kim has applied for her concealed carry permit but hasn’t received it yet. That doesn’t mean she won’t have access to or be able to use a firearm should she need one on the trip. The others aren’t quite old enough to get their concealed pistol permits but that doesn’t mean they don’t know what to do with a gun.

The following pictures illustrate my point.


Kim preparing for a steel match.


Xenia celebrates diversity.


Arden practicing with an AR-15.
Photo from Ry.


Ry helps stabilize the rifle while Anna fires off the shot that detonates the explosive target.
Photo from Ry.

Quote of the day–William H. Neukom

Posted on by

Revisiting the basic premise of the Second Amendment and striking down gun legislation for the first time in 216 years would have ripple effects through this entire network of state and local regulation. Although the Court ruled in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), that the Second Amendment limits the power only of the federal government, the decision relied on the importance of militias as a check on federal power. Separating the right to bear arms from the maintenance of a well regulated militia would cast doubt on the authority of state and local governments to regulate firearms. Such a ruling would thus invite challenges to hundreds of state and local restrictions, thrusting upon the courts difficult policy judgments about the reasonableness of individual regulations.

William H. Neukom
January 11, 2008
President American Bar Association
Brief of the American Bar Association as amicus curiae supporting petitioners.
[Would Neukon have expressed the same concerns if the case under consideration had been freeing the slaves, granting minorities equal access to the law, or allowing women access to abortion? Besides I don’t see there being any difficulty in judging the reasonableness of individual regulations when the wording of the Second Amendment is so clear, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Hence, if the regulation impedes, rather than assists, the people in keeping and bearing arms the regulation is unreasonable. Next case please.–Joe]

2nd Amendment Blogger Bash wrap up

Posted on by

There are two items that I have been feeling guilty about since returning from the NRA convention:

  1. I didn’t thank Jeff @ Damnum Absque Injuria for all the rides he gave me while in Louisville. He also straightened out a few legal issues where I, and occasionally others, wandered off into the wilderness where we didn’t know what we were talking about. I really appreciated his contributions to my enjoyment of the event.
  2. I didn’t post the complete story of the startup of the Palouse Pink Pistols in conjuction with The Lewiston Pistol Club and Fred Phelps. I told Bitter, Kevin, and Sebastian the short version on Sunday night but, being a detail person, I have been feeling guilty for not getting all the minutiae out for everyone to read.
My involvement with the The Pink Pistols

Most all of my readers should know what the Pink Pistols is all about. But before there was the Pink Pistols there was Cease Fear. I was a “foot soldier” in the earliest days of Cease Fear (named by Ray Carter as a play on the name of the anti-gun group Washington Cease Fire). Some of that back story can be found here and here. It was also during my time with Cease Fear that I came up with The Jews In The Attic Test.

After the Pink Pistols took off some people I knew from the gun clubs in the Moscow Idaho area (where I live) formed the Palouse Pink Pistols (and here). I was asked if I would like to help out. I’m straight but the Pink Pistols don’t reject membership on the basis of sexual orientation and I happily agreed.

Coincidentally with the formation of the Palouse Pink Pistols Fred Phelps showed up in Moscow for some reason. Also coincidentally, I was the IPSC match director for one month at the Lewiston Pistol Club when the designated person and their backup were both out of town on match day. I took full advantage of the alignment of the stars.

I needed four stages for the match. Three I could design myself and the fourth had to come from a list of “Classifiers” from the USPSA. I designed the stages with a Pink Pistols theme. The stages were Palouse Pink Pistols Practice, Queer Alley, and No Rest For The Wicked.

The names might have been enough, but the stage descriptions removed all doubt about what this was about.

From Palouse Pink Pistols Practice:

START POSITION: In pickup A, door shut, driver’s side window open with loaded gun on the seat.

While returning from an anti-Fred Phelps (owner of the web site http://www.godhatesfags.com/) rally in Moscow Idaho you see something suspicious on the side of the road and park your pickup behind a pickup that was apparently filed with drunk frat boys who are now tying someone to a fence post across the road. Three of them are approaching you and the closest one to you has a tire iron in his hand and tells you, “Move along, it’s just a couple of fags.”

On signal engage T1, T2, and T3 with two rounds each through the open window (door may be open or closed). Engage T4 and T5 with at least two rounds each. Set gun down and use the ‘dropped’ knife of the attacker to cut the hostage free (-10 procedural for each cut on the no-shoot). Set the knife down, pick up gun and engage T6 and T7 with at least one round each. Between the signal and the last round fired the shooter must shout “Pick on someone your own caliber!” (-10 procedural for failure to perform).

From Queer Alley:

START POSITION: Standing in front of T1 with your right hand on the down range shoulder of the no-shoot.

One night you and your companion are returning home from the protest against Fred Phelps visit to town. You walk by a narrow alley. A thug grabs your companion and starts to push them into the alley where you notice several other thugs are waiting for you. You engage them before they engage you. PP1 and PP2 represent the headlights of the car they are using for light.

From No Rest For The Wicked:

The story line is that you had let your guard down and two armed scumbags got the drop on you. They have told you they don’t like the color of your skin, eyes, your sexual orientation, the shape of your head, and the way you part your hair. After they take your money they are going to make some creative changes to your appearance. Just before they get you up against the wall a strange sound (which sounds a lot like an IPSC timer) distracts them for a moment. You take advantage of distraction and make some creative changes in their appearance. You must alternate between them to make sure neither of them has a extra moment to modify your features.

For the final stage I chose one essentially at random from the USPSA list. My criteria was that it had to be one we had the proper equipment for and that we hadn’t shot for at least a few months. I choose Steel One. In another instance of the stars magically aligning just right. The start position of this stage was, “Standing in Box A with back to targets, toes of both feet against rear fault line of Box A, hands on knees.”

At the time no one believed me and perhaps no one even today will believe me but this is the complete truth. Until I was reading the stage description and everyone started laughing as I demonstrated the start position I had no idea this stage was also “in theme”.

Realizing the formation of the Pink Pistols and our themed pistol match was newsworthy I contacted the Lewiston Morning Tribune. They didn’t send any reporters for the match but they did contact me and the founders of the Palouse Pink Pistols for phone interviews. This is the article that appeared in the paper a few days later. The AP picked up the story and published a shorter version of it. That lead to me being contacted by Matt Rosenberg who wrote an similarly themed editorial for the Seattle Times a few months later.

The big lesson I would like for people to learn from this story is that gun owners can get favorable press. Boomershoot with all the potential hazards of  “assault weapons”, “snipers”, “sniper rifles”, and “bombs” has been successfully pitched to the public as what it really is. People from all walks of life who are, in essence, having an early 4th of July celebration of freedom. In the same way with all the hazardous of “vigilante justice”, “cowboys”, and “angry red-necked white guys” potentially associated with a pistol match where people shoot at human shaped targets we were able to get it portrayed, as it actually is, just ordinary people having fun and practicing to defend innocent life from bodily harm.

It wasn’t that hard, it didn’t take that much extra work, and the positive media coverage reached 100s of thousands of people.