The First and Second Amendments mean exactly what they say. You should be able to express whatever you want and you should be able to own any kind of weaponry you want and can afford. End. Of. Fucking. Story.
Milo Yiannopoulos @m
Via Gab on August 5, 2019
[I think a good case can be made on restrictions for libel, slander, and incitement to riot/violence. But those exceptions doesn’t make for a good sound bite.—Joe]
Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, recently admitted they structured their “newsroom” to bring down President Trump. When they failed with the false Russia conspiracy story they came up with a different plan and restructured accordingly.
See New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism
They have admitted their guilt. Why isn’t this being treated as libel and the New York Times and staff sued into oblivion?
I would like to see every woman know how to handle guns as naturally as they know how to handle babies.
Annie Oakley
[H/T to Alex of Ammo.com.
I should have posted this on Oakley’s birthday, last Tuesday, August 13th. Which also happens to be my dad’s birthday. But, I wasn’t reading all my email and missed this one until last night.—Joe]
On August 2nd Ry brought Henry, his nephew from Illinois, to the range. Henry had shot a fair amount with Airsoft guns but never a real gun. As usual, I started him out with safety rules, grip, stance, and sight alignment on a suppressed .22 from about 10 feet away. This was his first shot (from a video by Ry):
Most of the time he was able to keep them on the target. He tended to have a bimodal distribution of his shots. They were either good or way off. I gave him the gun with an empty chamber when he expected the gun to be loaded. The bobble of the gun showed both of us he was not holding the gun steady as he squeezed the trigger. More dry fire helped.
I moved him on to shooting multiple targets. One shot per target. After he seemed have that down fairly well I removed the suppressor and brought out the timer. The pressure of the timer showed and on nearly every run of five shots he would miss one of the targets.
I told him each miss was a three second penalty, as it is in Steel Challenge matches and told him to remember the mantra, “Trigger prep, sight alignment, squeeze, follow-through”. The hits got better and then his times improved with some strings being in the mid fours.
I moved him on to low powered .40 S&W loads. At first he did almost as well as with the .22. Then there were more and more wild shots. More dry fire was required. After he seemed back in control I turned him over to Ry as I prepared to leave (Barb and I were headed to Mount Rainier that evening). Ry had his own set of toys and Henry started out with a fully equipped 9mm:
I picked up my brass and gear and left while Ry and Henry finished out the last 20 minutes or so we had the bay reserved. Ry later send me video and a picture he had taken of Henry with an AR:
The next day, while Barb and I were hiking nearly over 6500 feet above sea level on Mount Rainier, I got a message from Ry, “Thank you for yesterday. Henry can’t stop talking about it.”
Another shooter has joined the community.
You don’t communicate to them, you beat them. You beat them. They are not a majority of this country — the majority of white people in this country are not a majority of the country. All the people who are not fooled by this need to come together, go to the polls, go to the protests, do whatever you have to do. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.
Elie Mystal
August 11, 2019
MSNBC Panelist On Most White People: ‘Destroy Them’
[H/T to Matthew Bracken.
Good to know. I will prepare accordingly.—Joe]
This is way late but better late than never.
Last month daughter Kim and her husband Jacob had some friends visit Idaho from Utah. Most of them had never shot a gun and wanted to learn. Kim was thrilled I was going to be working on Boomershoot stuff that weekend and brought them to me to learn to shoot.
A couple locals had more gun experience and also showed up to participate. I originally expect people would arrive around 4:00 and maybe leave by 6:00. They arrived about 1:30, but, whatever. That worked for me as well.
It was a hot day and we put up a small shelter to give us some relieve from the sun:
I did the usual by starting them out with safety rules, grip, stanch, and a suppressed .22.
As you might expect, one of the more experience people needed a little more coaching to unlearn bad habits. The only pistol she had ever shot was a 9mm. She confess that when she pulled the trigger she always closed her eyes. Her hits on the target reflected this. With a little extra dry fire and coaching we got most of that cleared up and her targets looked much better.
Last weekend I was at the Boomershoot site doing some preparation for Boomershoot 2020 (May 1st, 2nd, and 3rd). Among my tasks I created a new site for the opening fireball. The opening fireball for Boomershoot 2019 was a little too warm for comfort. So I found a location further away from the spectators and built a sand platform similar to the one for Boomershoot 2019. It also happens to be in a location with much better visibility from the web cam.
Had you been watching the Boomershoot Live web page you would have seen this as I worked on it:
The sand platform serves two purposes. One is to raise the explosive targets high enough they can be easily seen by the shooter from a safe distance over the grass and ground. And the other reason is safety. Many years ago the site had farm buildings on it. Every once in a while we find scraps of metal from old machinery and things like door hinges. Making craters with explosives in this soil risks discovering such scrap metal in the form of a projectile. Putting the sand below the explosives eliminates this risk.
Another task I worked on was replacing the air filters at the explosive production facility. One of the reasons we had excellent detonation rates this year was the quality of the KClO3. It is much finer than than what we obtained from our previous supplier. This had it’s drawbacks as well. The three little air cleaners were overwhelmed by all the dust in the air. Here are the filters:
I think I need a better means of dust control for next year.
Why do we have the 2A.
I direct you to Hong Kong.
Right now.
Adam, RN @aginorr
Tweeted on August 14, 2019
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Via a suggestion from Haunt Fox @Haunt_Fox I looked at a research paper claiming to show:
These findings illustrate the shooter bias toward both human and robot agents. This bias is both a clear indication of racism towards Black people, as well as the automaticity of its extension to robots racialized as Black.
The study presented test subjects with a series of 128 images. Half contained a gun held by a person or robot. The other half had some other object being held. Half of the robots and people had a dark skin color and half were white. The test measured the response time of test subjects to make shoot/no-shoot decisions and their accuracy in making those decisions.
I found it “interesting” the researchers did not break out the supposed discovered bias by the various racial identities who participated in the study. Only seven subjects out of 163 in Experiment 1 identified as “Black or African American” so I could be persuaded this isn’t an adequate sample size. But 19 out of 172 subjects in Experiment 2 identified as “Black or African American”. I would think this should be a sufficient sample to test one or more additional hypothesis.
For example, were “Black or African American” people also biased against people and robots with dark skin tones? If these participants behaved essentially identical to “White, Caucasian, or European American”, “Hispanic or Latino American”, and “Asian American” participants then I would be strongly inclined to believe there was some aspect of the testing that caused what appeared to be the bias against dark skinned people and robots rather than actual bias. That is, unless it is claimed “Black or African American” people are also biased against their own race. From reading the study this could be true but it wasn’t made as clear as I would have liked it to be.
The authors did not mention doing this sort of validation of the test procedure and did not supply us with the raw data so that we could do this validation for ourselves. It would seem to me this is an obvious check on the validity of their experiment. If the racial identity of the subject did not correlate with the time required to make a shoot/no shoot decisions but there was a consistent bias toward shooting more quickly at black people and robots then doesn’t that strong imply it is an artifact of the testing rather than a bias of the subjects?
One could easily conclude they did not provide that information because it contradicted their predisposed conclusion. The study may well demonstrate the prejudice of the researchers rather than the prejudice of the study participants.
So, what could have the experiment measured rather than a racial bias? As suggested by Haunt Fox:
Just looking at the images of the targets it seems to me there are some serious visual-contrast issues that might prove major confounders.
The researchers supplied eight of the 128 images they used. Here are two of them:
As Haunt Fox observed there are significant contrast differences. The accuracy rates were generally slightly lower for the black people and robots. If the pictures above are representative then this is as expected. But if rapid identification of the gun in a low contrast situation contributed to time differences I would have expected the lower contrast images to take longer. This isn’t making sense.
I wonder about the 120 images they didn’t supply. Did they have contrast issues that were even worse and have some sort of bias not displayed in the pictures supplied? Were all the guns black? What about some chrome colored guns? Could an association of a dark skin colors with the presence of a gun have been created?
I’m skeptical this study tested what they claimed they were testing. I think there is a good chance they demonstrated their and/or test procedure bias rather than a “clear indication of racism” toward dark skinned robots.
The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
August 12, 2019
BRIEF OF SENATORS SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, MAZIE HIRONO, RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, RICHARD DURBIN, AND KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
[See also Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring and Gun-control backers concerned about changing federal courts.
This is in regards to the case of a law that said you are not allowed to take your gun out of New York City to compete in a match or to protect yourself at a second home, or while camping or traveling. That SCOTUS might rule against this law is proof, in their minds, that SCOTUS is “not well” and must be “restructured”.
What if a case went to SCOTUS regarding the 13th Amendment and the respondents were afraid the decision would conclude the 13th Amendment meant what it said? Could one also conclude this was also evidence SCOTUS was “not well”?
I conclude the Senators are “not well” and this brief should be used at their trial.
This is what they think of the 2nd Amendment.
This is how you get a civil war.—Joe]
You can’t put anything behind you with these people, because there is nothing to put behind you. It’s all a lie. You are not a racist. Your guns won’t hurt anyone but criminals and aspiring tyrants. And the leftists know it. They know they are spewing skeevy slanders, and if you give in on this one – handing over your AR-15 and hanging your head over prejudices you don’t possess – the libs and their newsprint lackeys will just club you with another set of grievances that you can only atone for through further submission.
It will never end. They will always hate you. Always. Nothing you can do will change that. Nothing. So get used to it and invite them to pound sand.
Kurt Schlichter
August 8, 2019
They Will Still Hate You Even If You Disarm
[Via email from Chet.
Stand up to them and tell them the adults are in charge. Temper tantrums from people that act like two year old’s and insults from people that act like they are in Junior High will be dealt with appropriately.—Joe]
While you guys are off stroking your shafts dreaming of some armed rebellion in the downfall of society and you get to be Rambo, the rest of us are moving on with civilization.
DintMentalFloss @DintMentalFloss
Tweeted on July 29, 2019
[I give this an “honorable mention” for an another Markley’s Law Monday because they didn’t mention penis size.
In addition to resorting to childish insults they overlook the fact that The Gun Is Civilization.—Joe].
Swat’em! They’re dead. Now come and arrest me. My defense? I was protecting my children and 500 innocent children & their families. Threaten my kids?! There will be YUGE consequences for open carry. We will ensure it!
Jim Poland @JimPolandcom
Tweeted on August 8, 2019
[This can and should be used at his trial.—Joe]
Via Matthew Bracken @ Matt_Bracken:
The abuse of psychiatry was legendary:
See also Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union.
Expect little difference if implemented here. What is going to be the default decision of a judge or psychologist? Risk letting a potential mass shooter keep their guns or risk an nonviolent person losing their guns?
If we can’t ban the damn things, then why don’t we raise the purchasing age to like 40?
Initech
August 7, 2019
Comment to Heading to El Paso, Trump nixes assault weapons ban
[I still sometimes find it odd that people have no concept of following the law of the land. “…shall not be infringed…” seems so clear and yet someone imagines it means the infringement of a specific enumerated right doesn’t really count if the person is not yet 40 years old.
Keep this in mind when people demand the age for purchase of any gun be raised to 21. The slippery slope is there. If this is allowed then what rationale can there be to resist raising the age to 30, 40, or 90?—Joe]
I’ve been reading email and websites which claim there is a new movie coming out in which rich elites hunt “deplorables”/Trump supporters. From watching the trailers it’s not clear this is the actual theme. It’s possible The Hunt is a politically neutral take-off of the short story “The Most Dangerous Game”. But that doesn’t match what The Hollywood Reporter and The Epoch Times claim:
The movie, “The Hunt,” from Universal Pictures, shows people hunting down “deplorables,” a term failed presidential contender Hillary Clinton used to describe supporters of Trump during the 2016 campaign.
Did anyone see what our [expletive]-in-chief just did?” one character asks others early in the movie, reported the Hollywood Reporter. “At least The Hunt’s coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables.”
According to the Reporter, the movie’s script features blue-state characters choosing to hunt red-state characters who expressed pro-life positions or were deemed racist.
Here are the trailers I have been able to find. You decide:
Items PV3 and PV4 from the CCES involve justifying violence by the inparty to
advance political goals. Terrorism, in other words. PV3 asks about violence today. PV4 asks
for responses if the outparty wins the 2020 presidential election, a hypothetical but realistic
scenario given recent alternation in party control of the presidency. Nine percent of
Republicans and Democrats say that, in general, violence is at least occasionally acceptable. However, when imagining an electoral loss in 2020, larger percentages of both parties
approve of the use of violence – though this increase is greater for Democrats (18 percent
approve) than Republicans (13 percent approve).
Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason
2019
Lethal Mass Partisanship: Prevalence, Correlates, & Electoral Contingencies
[H/T to J.D. Tuccille.
The questions PV1 –> PV4 were as follows:
Political Violence
PV1
When, if ever, is it OK for [Own party] to send threatening and intimidating messages to [Opposing party] leaders?
PV2
When, if ever, is it OK for an ordinary [Own party] in the public to harass an ordinary [Opposing party] on the Internet, in a way that makes the target feel unsafe4?
PV3
How much do you feel it is justified for [Own party] to use violence in advancing their political goals these days?
PV4
What if [Opposing party] win the 2020 presidential election? How much do you feel violence would be justified then?
4 “Unsafe” was replaced with “frightened” in the Nielsen survey.
I’m surprised by two things in this study.
That nearly one out of six Democrats and one out eight Republicans think violence is justified if the other party wins the presidency in 2020 I’m seriously hoping for a Libertarian win (yeah, right, only if the Democrats and Republicans kill each other off at some extremely drastic rate prior to the election) and planning on avoiding what probably will be “hot spots”.
With that high of percentage of violent people available to surround themselves with people are going to find the courage to “take action”. Regardless of who wins, the 2020 election could just be the spark that ignites CWII.—Joe]
Last Sunday, after hiking the Mount Rainier Skyline Trail the day before, we hiked the Naches Peak Loop Trail. It was a much easier hike, and while very pleasant, was no comparison in the Skyline Trail. Any other day it would have been an incredible hike. But after the Skyline Trail experience it was merely great.
For the most part the trails were wide and flat. There were a few narrow and rugged spots but nothing that caused us real concern. The views were wonderful. In places the wildflower were so plentiful the air was filled with their scent even as you walked by.
At the bottom of this news article is a poll about banning “assault weapons”. After the “assault weapon” question it asks another two or three questions and then gives the results of the poll questions. I would like to suggest you give them your opinion on “Would you support a ban on assault rifles in the United States?”
Currently they report 76% respond “yes” to the question.
Can gun-owners be faulted in believing when a liberal man marries a liberal woman, it’s a same-sex marriage?
Yitzhak Goldstein
July 22, 2019
Henny Penny Builds A “Safe” Gun
[While probably not strictly true it’s certainly directionally true.—Joe]
