Slowing the march isn’t a step in the right direction

Posted on by

Say Uncle pointed me to this article about MSM whining about the lack of “productivity” of Congress. Apparently slowing down the destruction of freedom with still more laws is considered a bad thing.

In my book Congressional “productivity” would be measured by the net number of laws repealed per unit of time. But no one really knows how many laws we have so we really need a different metric for productivity in Joe’s world.

We do know as of the 1980 we had something on the order of 23,000 pages of Federal law. But we know that Obamacare has about 2,400 pages all by itself! And that doesn’t include the regulations that are derived from the law. The estimates on the number of pages of regulations are on the order of 170,000 pages. And the U.S. tax code has something on the order of 13,000 pages.

I’m thinking a reasonable productivity rate would be something on the order of a page per minute. After an entire year on the the job they would be most of the way through Obamacare. It would take decades to get back to constitutionally enumerated limits. But it took us decades to get here so as long as they are making progress at a rate equal to or greater than the rate we arrived here I can’t really complain a whole lot.

Explain to me how this works

Posted on by

There are more and more people calling for constitutional amendments, or a convention of states.

Let me see if have this right– Those in office aren’t obeying the constitution, so we’re going to change the constitution that they aren’t obeying.

Isn’t that a bit like a “gun free zone” sign, in that those who would obey it aren’t the problem we’re addressing? “We must pass new laws because criminals aren’t obeying the laws” is what we scoff at when it comes from Progressive communists. Now we’re doing it too?

The best I can see coming from a new or revised constitution is that it would represent an official mandate– It might serve as a psychological incentive for the three percent, somewhat like the Emancipation Proclamation which on its surface had no teeth being that there was already a state of active rebellion.

Just don’t think for a second that the dirtbags in power are going to see your shiny new, libertarian constitution and say to themselves; “Golly! Now THERE’S a constitution I can obey to the letter, the spirit, the whole deal! Heck yeah! No problem! No more redistributionist/interventionist/kleptocratic thinking for me! No, Sir! This is GREAT now…all of a sudden…like!”

Really?

No one wants to confiscate your guns…

Posted on by

Except when they do. Even things like a tube-magazine bolt-action 22, because it can hold more than 5 rounds. NYC at it’s stupidest. The 113 year old 1911 .45 ACP has a standard seven round magazine, so you need to get rid of your old magazines and buy… er, I don’t know of any makers of 5-round 1911 magazines. Maybe they exist, but I’ve never seen one.

Leave a comment for the ATF

Posted on by

Robb requested we comment to the ATF on the proposed rule change in regards to trusts for Title II firearm transfers. This includes safety equipment like noise suppressors. The NRA made a similar request, BATFE Solicits Comments on Poorly-Conceived NFA Transfer Proposal.

Both sources had some good points to make with the ATF so I combined them and added some material of my own. The result which I filed, via this link (then click the “Comment Now!” button near the top right), is as follows:

I oppose the ATF proposal to require CLEO sign off approval for all Title II firearm transfers, including Trusts and other legal entities.

1. The requirement for permission from a government official to exercise a constitutionally protected right is wrong on principle and should not continue let alone be expanded.

2. All appearances are there is not a problem with the existing system. I am unable to find any documented cases where a crime has been committed via a Title II firearm transferred in this manner. Hence this rule change must have as its sole purpose the increasing of the burden of those wishing to exercise a specific enumerated right. It cannot be about protecting the life or property of innocent people.

3. The proposed change would make it much more difficult to set up a means to transfer property to heirs without net benefit to anyone.

4. ATF was petitioned by the petitioner, NFATCA to eliminate the clumsy “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” (CLEO) sign off replacing it with a notification to the CLEO of the pending transfer, and supplanting the sign off with the NICS check used for thousands of firearm purchases daily.  ATF vaguely states it agrees, at least in part with the justification for the petitioner’s request, however without any justification it proposes expanding that process to all transfers.

5. ATF admits in the proposal that it has access to several databases, including NICS, which could be used to accomplish what the petitioner requested and ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands.

6. The CLEO sign off is clumsy and outdated.  It is also far more expensive for the industry, firearms owners and the government to maintain – or expand in this proposal, than to use the NICS check procedures to verify transfers of title II firearms are not transferred to prohibited persons.

7. The CLEO sign off enables corrupt persons in CLEO positions to politically coerce money out of transferees in the guise of campaign donations.

8. As the petitioner requested, a NICS check on the principal officers of an individual, principle officers of a trust or other legal entity would be faster, more efficient, and would reduce the chances for human error.  This would allow the NFA transfer process to be streamlined, it would be safer for the public and would be a less burdensome regulatory change.

Once again, I oppose any expansion of the ‘Chief Law Enforcement Officer’ sign off requirements for NFA transfers.

My comment tracking number: 1jx-894g-nxy5.

Quote of the day—Pete Shields

Posted on by

It is important to understand that our organization, Handgun Control, Inc., does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable.

Pete Shields
Chairman of Handgun Control
In his 1981 book “Guns Don’t Die People Do: The Pros, the Cons, the Facts” (chapter 3, pages 47-48).
[Via email from Jay F.

I find it interesting that the book is available for $0.01 on Amazon. A penny for his thoughts is apparently the going rate.

Handgun Control is now The Brady Campaign.

Even before the name change the organization pushed for more restrictive background checks on rifles and shotguns. And they pushed hard for the “assault weapon” ban that ultimate became law in 1994 which banned many rifles and shotguns in common use.

Do not ever think they will be content with just some class of guns being banned.—Joe]

I’m a “respected Idaho based shooter and author”

Posted on by

Apparently I’m now “a respected Idaho based shooter and author.”

The background story is that I and several other bloggers were asked by the folks at AmmoForSale.com which of the three major calibers, 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, was the best. I answered, via the blog post, and they just posted an article that incorporates some of my response.

I appreciate the kind words but I’m not sure I have all that much respect as a shooter compared to a lot of other people and I’m a “software author”, blogger, and occasional magazine article writer. I’m not really an “author” in the most common sense.

Still, I think they did a good job on their article even if they did give me more credit than I think I’m due.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

The Federal government has laws against marijuana use, possession, and sales. Although heavily regulated in Washington state you can soon buy pot in stores and people currently openly admit to using it in private. To the best of my knowledge the Feds have not and do not plan to prosecute anyone for violation of their marijuana laws but continue to do so in other states.

But the Feds aggressively fight the Firearms Freedom Act in the states which have passed such laws. And I’m certain that if I started manufacturing guns and selling them in Montana, Idaho or any of the other FFA states without a license or complying with the hundreds if not thousands of Federal laws and regulations on firearms I would soon get an unpleasant visit from the Feds.

What does this mean? Doesn’t it mean that laws are enforced by the whim of the politicians in power? How is this different than having laws against assault and battery but not enforcing them if the victim is of the “wrong” color, religion, or sexual-orientation?

You have to “just know” the law does or doesn’t apply to you this week/month/election-cycle. I firmly believe it would be better that all laws be vigorously and equally enforced. The outrage would result in the stupid laws being repealed.

The existence of a multitude of unenforced laws is a huge risk. How you ask? With so many things being illegal it means our government has the power to arbitrarily imprison anyone at any time. We have fully equipped our government with tyrannical powers just waiting for the “right person” to use them.

We will finally be safe and secure…

Posted on by

…once we have been stripped of the best means of defending ourselves.

That was originally posted on Angelfire as one of the “121 Tenets of Socialism” my brother and I wrote many years ago, and which has since disappeared down the rabbit hole of early internet restructurings and multiple computer replacements. It’s one of the tenets I remember well. They all highlight the blatant logical contradictions we’re expected to embrace in the name of the coming Heaven on Earth that Progressive communism promises in exchange for total surrender to government authority.

Quote of the day—Edgar Chavez

Posted on by

Guns are a big problem in our country. They have made us more violent. Basically, guns have taken control of us.

…

This country would be a lot safer if we could, in some way, get rid of all the guns. One way this could happen is by making the government intervene and take them away from every person. I think that would be the best.

Edgar Chavez
December 2, 2013
Taking guns out of society
[We sometimes say that the anti-gun people must believe guns control people. Here is someone who explicitly says that.

Further evidence of his delusions is that he imagines the government could take all the guns from every person and that would make people safer.—Joe]

Boomershoot in photo contest

Posted on by

Art S. sent me a link to this. It is a Boomershoot photo which tied for third place in a photo contest for the inaugural December Shooting Sports USA cover.

This is the same picture of Anette that was in the June 2012 issue of Western Shooting Journal.

Overheard

Posted on by

Barb: I got all the kinks out.

Joe:  When you went to the gym?

Barb: Yes.

Joe: What did you do with them when you got them out?

Barb (after no more than a half-second pause): I put them in the corner for later when I want to get kinky.

Quote of the day—Anonymous Reader

Posted on by

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the flagship organization of the gun crazies. It claims to be an organization of law-abiding Americans who are doing more than defending their Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms. However, the truth about the NRA is far from benign; the truth is frightening. They are a group of sociopaths with a clear agenda: unlimited gun proliferation at all costs, human and otherwise. They have not one iota of human compassion or feeling; their devotion to their implements of death knows no bounds.

Anonymous Reader
July 26, 2001
The Terrible Truth About Gun Owners
[Imagine what they think “the government should do” about “a group of sociopaths” with “not one iota of human compassion or feeling”.

These are very dangerous people.—Joe]

Boomerite testing

Posted on by

This weekend Barb and I did some testing for a new Boomerite recipe. We ground up some Styrofoam peanuts in the blender. We blended the Ammonium Nitrate until it was a fine powder. Then we used the usual masses of the AN, Potassium Chlorate, and Ethylene Glycol. We added about a cup and a half of the ground Styrofoam and mixed it all together.

The result looked like this:

WP_20131130_003

That is 300 grams of the mixture which nearly fills the 4”x4”x2” box. It takes 400 grams of conventional Boomerite for the same volume. The hope was that the finer particle size of the AN would result in a more rapid and complete chemical reaction. The AN is usually in prill form. When finely ground it does not detonate easily.

Our hypothesis is that the prills create air gaps and the supersonic shockwave from the bullet compresses the air which heats the chemicals to the required temperature for detonation.

The hypothesis being tested was that the Styrofoam would supply the “air gaps” and enable the detonation in the usual fashion.

As you might expect for the last day of November it was a bit on the cool side at Boomershoot Mecca. Barb’s clothing confirms that suspicion:

WP_20131130_007

We took the test and control targets to the Boomershoot site and shot them with Stinger 22LR from 23 yards away. The two out of two conventional Boomerite targets detonated with a single hit. Zero out of six of the Styrofoam “enhanced” targets detonated. I then tried shooting them with 55 grain FMJ .223 American Eagle ammo from 23 yards away. Two out of ten detonated. Many of the others were “smokers”. They were close to detonating but weren’t quite over the threshold.

Barb finished off the four remaining conventional Boomerite targets with one shot each.

There are some other tests we could do along the same line. It could be we had too low a density. Packing the targets some might make a difference. We also have some hard polystyrene pellets (used for stuffing dolls, etc.) that might replace the prills. But I’m concerned they would not be consumed in the reaction and would be scattered all over the field. I expect the ground Styrofoam would just be fuel for the excess oxygen in our Boomerite mix and we wouldn’t have to worry about the potential for litter.

Brunch at Tam’s Place*

Posted on by

Barb and I went to Idaho this weekend and as we were leaving the area on Sunday we had brunch at Tam’s Place in Pullman (Washington) with daughter Kim and Jacob.

WP_20131201_012

WP_20131201_002

I had a bacon and cheese omelet. I was impressed. The inside was mostly bacon with only enough cheese to fill in the gaps. I opted for the French toast on the side. I could have had hash browns or regular toast. I really liked the meal.

WP_20131201_005

Kim and Jacob seemed to enjoy their meals:

WP_20131201_010

Barb had eggs benedict and said it was marginal.

WP_20131201_011

* No. Not that Tam. But that is what I wanted you to think with the title.

A changed mind

Posted on by

Via email from Lou Gagliardi I received links to the following Tweets of theirs with the comment, “There, go ahead and have a field day”.

I’m having a difficult time imagining how or why anyone would transform them into a “field day” but here they are:

 

 

 

 

For more background see these posts of mine about the same person:

Quote of the day—rich roberts ‏@boris3324

Posted on by

@linoge_wotc keep telling yourself that. #NRAdicklesswonders

rich roberts ‏@boris3324
Tweeted on May 16, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday via a Tweet from Linoge!

This was in response to:

Linoge @linoge_wotc

I see your mind is fabricating delusions for you to comfort yourself in. Good, considering #guncontrol‘s history of failure. @boris3324

—Joe]

Sheep testicles

Posted on by

I came across a “TED Talk”  by the guy that does Dirty Jobs. In the comments, there was a link to a podcast he did giving some background on how it came about. The first in fascinating, funny, and thought provoking. The latter I thought was hysterical. Mike Rowe is sharp, and surprisingly well educated (I don’t mean just “he has a degree,” but seems to be familiar with Classics, Greek and Latin). He’s an excellent speaker. [Edit: Hmmmm… It doesn’t like to embed the frame with the video. Link to TED Talk is here.]

 

Continue reading →

Quote of the day—Anonymous

Posted on by

A gun has no other purpose than to kill. It appear to me that the right to bear arms transcends the right of school children’s right to live. As long as the public are allowed to own weapons of local destruction children’s lives will be in danger. Make ALL ownership of guns a capital offence.

Anonymous
Comment to Would a ban on guns reduce crime in the U.S.?
[Simple solutions from simple minds.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Responsive Communitarian Platform

Posted on by

There is, however, one measure sure to gain monumental benefits in the short run. It is politically nearly impossible to take, otherwise low-cost and very effective.

…

What is needed is domestic disarmament. This is the policy of practically all other Western democracies, from Canada to Britain to Germany, from France to Scandinavia. Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands and, ultimately, from much of the police force.

The Responsive Communitarian Platform
November 18, 1991
THE CASE FOR DOMESTIC DISARMAMENT
[From the dark ages of gun ownership.

Low cost? The cost would be incalculable.

Effective? At what? The only thing I can see it being effective at is mobilizing people to “recall” (one way or another) all the politicians foolish enough to support it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rabbi Michael Lerner

Posted on by

Banning all guns is necessary but NOT sufficient in light of the increasing violence in our society.

Rabbi Michael Lerner
December 15, 2012
Banning Guns Is Necessary But Not Sufficient
[The Rabbi should check his numbers on the “increasing violence”. Then he should talk to the good folks at JPFO.—Joe]