Wow!

This guy is pushing the envelope in main stream media:

Thomas Jefferson clearly stated that when government becomes oppressive, the people have the right to throw it off and establish a new government of their choosing. I am beginning to think it is time for us to start throwing.

He expresses a little bit of fear at being so outspoken too:

About the only freedom we have left is that of the press, and I would not be surprised to hear that I am no longer allowed to speak my mind in this column.

Yup.  I could see that happening.

And what caused him to be so outspoken?  No surprise here either:

…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment Five, U.S. Constitution.
Why is it that the more powerful you become the less ability you have to read clear and precise language? The Fifth Amendment states clearly that private property can only be taken for public use, and that such property must be paid for at a fair rate. How then did five U.S. Supreme Court justices decide that it was legal for the city of New London, Connecticut to force five landowners off their property so it can be given to a giant corporation? The city has no plans to use this property for highways, schools, jails or any other public use.

I think Nicolo Machiavelli may have it right.

Quote of the day–Mohandas Gandhi

In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.

Mohandas Gandhi

John Lott Jr. in the LA Times

Sure, it’s a commentary but I don’t see any opposing commentary and it’s in the Los Angles Times.  That’s a very big paper in a liberal city/state.

The Big Lie of the Assault Weapons Ban

This wasn’t supposed to happen. When the federal assault weapons ban ended on Sept. 13, 2004, gun crimes and police killings were predicted to surge. Instead, they have declined.

For a decade, the ban was a cornerstone of the gun control movement. Sarah Brady, one of the nation’s leading gun control advocates, warned that “our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis.” Life without the ban would mean rampant murder and bloodshed.

For gun control advocates, even a meaningless ban counts. These are the same folks who have never been bashful about scare tactics, predicting doom and gloom when they don’t get what they want. They hysterically claimed that blood would flow in the streets after states passed right-to-carry laws letting citizens carry concealed handguns, but that never occurred. Thirty-seven states now have right-to-carry laws — and no one is seriously talking about rescinding them or citing statistics about the laws causing crime.

Gun controllers’ fears that the end of the assault weapons ban would mean the sky would fall were simply not true. How much longer can the media take such hysteria seriously when it is so at odds with the facts?

A very sad day for property rights and liberty

I did not expect this.  I can barely believe it.  This is just so incredibly wrong.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person’s home as part of a private development project aimed at boosting tax revenues and revitalizing a local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a private development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.

As expected lighters get by security

As I and others said at the time the ban on lighters was stupid.  There is no practical way it can be enforced.  The newspapers are talking about the results now:

Last winter, when federal transportation security officials began discussing a ban on cigarette lighters in airline cabins, they warned that the lighters might slip past their screening equipment. Some airport managers were skeptical for the same reason.

Turns out they were right, at least if the recent experience of a handful of Twin Cities air travelers is any indication.

A dozen times in the past several weeks, those passengers sailed past airport screeners with at least one lighter in their carry-on bags.

“They really can be somewhat dangerous on a plane,” said Roth, a former Secret Service agent. “But the ban [also] is like a no-parking sign — if you find a lighter, it gives you an opening to look for something else that isn’t supposed to be in the luggage.”

One of the strongest congressional advocates for the lighter ban was Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who cited shoe bomber Richard Reid’s attempt in December 2002 to blow up a plane using matches.

If Reid had used a lighter, “the FBI said he would have blown up — the shoe bomber would have blown up the airplane,” Dorgan said during a Feb. 15 hearing.

Dorgan spokesman Barry Piatt said his boss “is keeping his eye on” the lighter ban but has indicated no dissatisfaction about its comprehensiveness.

“Nothing works 100 percent,” Piatt said. “That doesn’t mean things aren’t significantly improved. I think he wants to allow them time to work this. I don’t think anyone expected perfection in the first couple of months.”

‘Improved’?  Yeah, right.  They only lighters they are finding are the lighters people forgot about.  Anyone with a room temperature I.Q. can hide one such the screeners won’t find it.  Hence they are taking lighters from people that had no plans to do anything wrong with them.  The only ‘benefit’ to this policy is making some candidates for mental help feel better–and that especially applies to Sen. Dorgan.

As for Roth–Ayn Rand has him pegged.

Another airplane insecurity report

They just don’t and won’t stop.  Here’s another one:

For at least 25 years, the Federal Aviation Administration failed one test after another when it came to airport security. Undercover agents walked through airport checkpoints toting machine guns on their backs and bombs stashed in their carry-on luggage. Agents easily breached security precautions, breezing past locked doors to enter empty planes, mingling behind the scenes with ground crews.

“The facts remain the facts,” says Steve Elson, a former undercover FAA security officer who tried to warn the agency it was on the edge of disaster. “It is still child’s play to knock down 50 airplanes in a few hours’ span with near 100 percent chance of success, and probably quite easy to fly a plane into the White House or Congress.”

I contend it’s simply not possible to make airplanes any safer with the current approach.  We need to completely rethink the problem from a clean slate, do some simulations, and reimplement our security based on solid science rather than pandering to the mental disorders and power cravings of a few people.

TSA money is spent on mental problems

TSA has installed some new explosive detection equipment to screen passengers:

The federal Transportation Security Administration has finished a pilot program, which started in June 2004, by installing explosives detectors for passengers in 14 cities. By the end of September, 44 detectors will be installed in 10 additional airports, including Pittsburgh, the TSA said.

The explosives detector looks like a doorframe, like the metal detectors now used at the airport checkpoint. Passengers will stand still for a few seconds while the detector releases several puffs of air.

The detector collects and analyzes the air for traces of explosives, according to TSA. A computerized voice will tell passengers when they can step out of the doorway, said Ann Davis, regional TSA spokeswoman.

The machine, which costs more than $3 million, is an added layer of security, not a replacement for any existing security measures, Davis said.

The pilot program gave the TSA the opportunity to fine-tune the machine’s operations, “and it certainly helped improve customer service by reducing the number of individuals selected for pat-down procedures,” Davis said.

Currently, the only way to check passengers for explosives in Pittsburgh is through pat-downs and random searches, Snell said.

“The machine is also very sophisticated and sensitive, and can detect even the smallest trace element of explosives,” Davis said.

That means heart patients who take nitroglycerin, which is one of the prohibited chemicals, could set off the alarm, Snell said. They might smooth the checkpoint process by carrying the medication in the prescription bottle or have a prescription with them, though they probably would be sent to secondary pat-down procedures.

 Cities in the pilot program were Baltimore, Boston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York (Kennedy), Phoenix, San Francisco, San Diego, Tampa, Jacksonville, Fla.; Gulfport, Miss.; Providence, R.I.; and Rochester, N.Y.

Those to be added along with Pittsburgh are Dallas/Fort Worth, Washington, D.C. (Dulles and Reagan National), Charlotte, N.C.; Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach, Fla.; Newark, N.J., New York (LaGuardia) and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

$3 Million for each machine???  My guess is the machines will either generate far, far too many false positives or else not detect explosives carried by someone that put reasonable effort into sealing them up.  There is simply far too much overlap in the residue between someone walking through a recently fertilized lawn, an gravel pit, or construction site or other innocent activity and someone who purposely hid explosives on themselves.  I believe that money is being completely wasted.  Well, perhaps not totally wasted–it will make people with certain types of mental problems feel better.

Mental problems of anti-gun people

As I mentioned earlier today JPFO has a bookletDo Gun Prohibitionists Have a Mental Problem?  Here are some of the mental problems mentioned in the booklet:

  1. Projection–A person cannot accept their own feelings because they are bad, wrong, or forbidden so they project them onto others.  A typical anti-gun person that uses this mechanism might have feelings of unconscious rage toward gun owners, project them onto the gun owners, then have a conscious fear of gun owners.
  2. Denial–A person refuses to accept reality because that reality is too emotionally painful.  A typical anti-gun person that uses this mechanism might believe that the police are all anyone really needs to protect them from attack by criminals or that a tyrannical government could never happen here.
  3. Reaction formation–A person turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.  A typical anti-gun person that uses this mechanism might have a murderous rage toward his fellow humans and then claim to be a pacifist and believe they are “superior” to “less civilized” people who engage in “violent behavior” such as hunting or target shooting.

The booklet goes on say that pointing out the mental problems to the anti-gun person isn’t going to be very productive.  What you need to do is:

  1. Make the person feel safe, then provide experiences and information to help him understand the positive aspects of gun ownership.
  2. Be gentle.  Defense mechanism protect people from feelings they cannot handle.  If you take that protection away, you can cause serious psychological harm.  And because defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, it won’t do any good to point out to the anti-gun person that he or she is using a defense mechanism.
  3. Use the mirror technique.  Feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a neutral inquisitive way.  If someone says that people shouldn’t own guns because they don’t want to be killed if their neighbor had a bad day, you might respond, “So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you.  What makes you think that?“  It’s important to ask “open-ended“ questions that require an answer other than “yes“ or “no“.  Such questions require he anti-gun person to actually think about what he is saying.
  4. Don’t try to “win“ the argument.  If you are arrogant, hurtful or rude to the anti-gun person, you will only convince him that gun owners are arrogant, hurtful and rude people–who shouldn’t be trusted with guns.
  5. Respond sympathetically to the plight of the anti-gun person.  If they believe they are surrounded by people that want to kill them and their family if only those people had a gun and they could do nothing but wait for the inevitable they lead a terrified life.  Invoke your own compassion for their situation.
  6. Provide corrective experiences.  Corrective experiences are experiences that allow a person to learn that his ideas about gun owners and guns are incorrect in a safe and non-threatening way.

There is a lot more material in booklet.  Many of the JPFO “Gran’pa Jack” booklets are for giving to anti-gun people.  This one probably is better utilized by distributing it to pro-gun people.  Although I haven’t done that with this one I have purchased a few hundred of their booklets and let the local sporting goods store give them away.  I’ve also given them away at Boomershoot events and local IPSC matches.

Update: See also the more complete version here: Raging Against Self Defense.

Update October 22, 2010: See also Peterson Syndrome.

Quote of the day–William O. Douglas

The American Government is premised on the theory that if the mind of man is to be free, his ideas, his beliefs, his ideology, his philosophy must be placed beyond the reach of government.

William O. Douglas
Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
April 17, 1939 to November 12, 1975

Quote of the day–Lyndon Johnson

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.

Lyndon Johnson
Former U.S. President

Quote of the day–Eugene Goodrich

My bill will crack down on gun shows and illegal gun trafficking, ban violent juveniles from ever being able to buy a gun and close the loophole that lets juveniles own assault rifles.

From Clinton’s weekly radio address, the transcript of which I encountered at http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/Clintonradio_littleton99044.html

Please note that apparently there is a loophole that lets juveniles own select-fire carbines.

Seriously, though, this is an important step forward.  If juveniles had not been allowed to own assault rifles (or even semi-automatic centerfire rifles with a black anodized coating), the two teens in Littleton would not have made pipe bombs or shot a bunch of people at their school with shotguns and pistols.

Eugene Goodrich
(Member of the Microsoft Gun Club)
Sat 4/24/99

Quote of the day–Winston Churchill

Never turn your back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!

Winston Churchill

Quote of the day–Charles Schumer

We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true!. We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!

U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer
November 30, 1993
NBC Nightly News

I thought it would stop with knives

Brought to my attention by The Smallest Minority who has a somewhat different viewpoint.  In an effort to “banish street crime“ they are banning certain types of clothes in England now.  And I thought banning knives was so low the only way they could go was up.  I was wrong:

The United Kingdom is the most-monitored nation in the world, with more than 4 million closed-circuit television cameras operating around the country. But culprits frequently evade Big Brother’s watchful eye by concealing their identities with the ubiquitous head wear.

“I think the fact you go around with these hats and these covers… I mean, it is a uniform, in a sense,” Prescott said last week.

As a result, a large shopping center in southeast England offered a new tact by implementing a “code of conduct” that includes a ban on the wearing of “hoodies.”

“I think it’s marvelous,” Bluewater shopper Jill Hopper said of the initiative this week.

Cropper, a doorman, and Thomas, a bar manager, both added that they would like to see a complete ban on caps and hoods in city centers.

What will it take for them to realize the problem isn’t that they don’t have enough laws but they have too many?  If a few potential vicitims emptied a couple of 15 round magazines of jacketed hollowpoints into a gang of thugs attempting a violent crime two things would happen:

  1. Thugs would be less inclined commit crimes.
  2. There would be fewer repeat offenders.

But that won’t happen.  I can’t imagine what will be next but I’m certain they will think of something else to ban.

Quote of the day–Samuel Adams

If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams
1776

Quote of the day–Charles E. Schumer

What is sad is that this Congress is in danger of becoming irrelevant. We are on the verge of ceding responsibility from the legislative branch to the judicial branch because we cannot stand up to [the] gun lobby. It is ironic and fitting that our inability to act in any way that satisfies the American people has spawned a series of lawsuits that could ultimately impose penalties on the gun industry far more severe than even the most ardent gun control supporters in Congress hope to achieve.

Charles E. Schumer
November 4, 1999
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR00067.html
[Could this have been the turning point?  The instant when we held the line and our attackers directed their attention to a perceived weakness in our flank?]

Quote of the day–Ambrose Bierce

Liar: A lawyer with a roving commission.

Ambrose Bierce
The Devil’s Dictionary

Quote of the day–Madeleine K. Albright

Of course, small arms are not the root cause of conflict in these and other regions. We cannot ease every tension or prevent every fight. But we can help make bad situations better by doing more to ensure that arms do not fall into the wrong hands. We can help governments that want help to keep dangerous weapons off their streets. And we can make it harder for the forces of extremism and hate to get the weapons they need to carry out their destructive designs.

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Remarks on the Occasion of Receiving the
International Rescue Committee Freedom Award
New York, New York, November 10, 1998
[That philosophy is working well in the Sudan right now, huh?  And it worked well for Germany when they passed the Weapons Control Act of 1938 keeping guns out of the hands Jews. –Joe]

Airport security is still a joke

Another report is soon to be out and the results are as expected:

WASHINGTON — Screening at U.S. airports is no better now than before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a member of the U.S. House of Representatives who was briefed Friday about an investigation conducted by the Government Accountability Office and one by the Homeland Security Department. 

“A lot of people will be shocked at the billions of dollars we’ve spent and the results they’re going to see,” said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House aviation subcommittee.

Improving the ability to find dangerous materials has been a top goal of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration since it took over the security task at about 450 airports in early 2002. More than 45,000 people were hired.

Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio, the ranking Democrat on the aviation subcommittee, also was briefed on the two reports, which are to be released within a month.

The TSA, which did not immediately return telephone calls Friday seeking comment, has said in the past that the tests used to measure screener performance are much more rigorous than they were before the Sept. 11 hijackings.

Since then, screeners have been much more aggressive about seizing prohibited items. Each month, screeners confiscate about a half-million objects from passengers, including, on average, 160,000 knives, 2,000 box cutters and 70 guns.

Although they will claim they just need more money for training and better equipment the real problem is that it’s an unsolvable problem from this approach.  There are better solutions available but they are politically unacceptable.

Who’s insane?

At the NRA convention last week one news organization managed to take a few Ted Nugent quotes out of context and make him sound a bit on the extreme side:

HOUSTON (AP) – With an assault weapon in each hand, rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent urged National Rifle Association members to be “hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense.”

Speaking at the NRA’s annual convention Saturday, Nugent said each NRA member should try to enroll 10 new members over the next year and associate only with other members.

“Let’s next year sit here and say, ‘Holy smokes, the NRA has 40 million members now,'” he said. “No one is allowed at our barbecues unless they are an NRA member. Do that in your life.”

Nugent sang and played a guitar painted with red and white stripes for the crowd at Houston’s downtown convention center.

He drew the most cheers when he told gun owners they should never give up their right to bear arms and should use their guns to protect themselves if needed.

“Remember the Alamo! Shoot ’em!” he screamed to applause. “To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want ’em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot ’em.”

Of course almost every gun rights activist knows the NRA is the gun owners organization most likely to hand over our rights on a silver platter to victim disarmament crowd and cannot considered radical.  And even though I disagree with the philosophy of only associating with NRA members the world would be a safer and better place if the anti-freedom biogots of the world like Henry Boitel were in the mental wards rather than the Ted Nugents as Henry suggests would be appropriate.