Quote of the day—John Stossel

Posted on by

We don’t live in a reasonable world. We live in a big government world.

John Stossel
2012
No, They Can’t: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed
[I’m just finishing up this book. It’s a good book. For me there were lots of examples of how government screwed up things—all with the best of intentions. I knew in general that was the case but having more examples was nice. If you could get them to read the book the most benefit would be gained by politicians and progressive voters reading it. But if they could be convinced by facts and logic they probably wouldn’t be politicians and they certainly wouldn’t be progressives.—Joe]

Cold Starts

Posted on by

It’s been a little chilly around here recently. Nothing serious, just mid-teens at night. But I drive a VW diesel, and they don’t much like the cold. It’ll start and run, but for the first ten or fifteen minutes there isn’t enough extra heat from the engine to defrost the windows or warm the cabin efficiently. If I only have to drive six miles to a school, it’s not good for the engine or oil, bad for fuel efficiency, and not overly comfortable because it’s just starting to get warm by the time I get there. I had a small oil-pan heater similar to this one, but it no longer works, and I need a new oil pan anyway. So I investigated what the possibilities were. None looked particularly good to me for, until I came across FrostHeater, an independently developed aftermarket part that fills a need. (Hmmm, seems I know someone that did something similar. If I could just remember who…)

Basically, it splices into the coolant circulation system with a small pump and a 1kw heater. Put it on a timer, and you get hot water circulating around your engine block starting an hour before you plan on having to leave. Sounds like a pretty good idea, and the reviews I can find are fairly positive. So, I ordered one. When I get it installed, I’ll post how the install went, and how well it works.

Ordered thought of the day

Posted on by

You know; ordered as opposed to random, just because I feel like being a smart ass.

The most ignorant, uninspired person in the room is the one who’s most interested in running things.

The person who’s doing nothing, seeing the person who’s doing something, will become irritated and try to tell the person who’s doing something that he’s doing it wrong or that he shouldn’t be doing it, and/or that the doer is victimizing the non doer with all his inconsiderate and irresponsible doing. Failure in that strategy requires falling back on plan B; taking credit for the works of the doer that could not be redirected or discouraged.

The non doer views the mastery of this simple strategy as incontrovertible proof of superior intelligence and worth.

This is the basis of all politics, in the same sense that space, time, matter and energy are the bases of life– It is a fundamental law of nature.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

The Bill of Rights isn’t about protecting rights the government has no interest in infringing. It’s about protecting those rights which are in danger of being repressed by government.

For about the first 150 years of this country there wasn’t a serious effort to disarm the citizens. Starting in about 1934 and continuing until the present day there has been.

The Second Amendment isn’t outdated. It was ahead of it’s time.

Quote of the day—Dennis Levinson

Posted on by

Our politicians are unwilling to stand up to the terrorist organization using the name the National Rifle Association (NRA).

…

It is now time to overturn the Second Amendment, which no longer has any more validity than slavery or suppression of women’s rights, all supported by our founding fathers in our original Constitution.

We now live in the 21st century and need to become a “civilized” society. No one should be allowed to own a gun of any kind.

…

The time has come for all of the intelligent, sane citizens to demand an end to all guns in our society. It can be done when we have finally had enough of going to the funerals of innocent little children.

Dennis Levinson
December 26, 2012
Time to ban all guns
[I wonder what he thinks should be done with those non-intelligent, insane, supporters of the “terrorist organization using the name the National Rifle Association”. Jail perhaps? Or maybe psych wards? Progressives in the Soviet Union utilized psychiatric medical institutions to suppress political dissent. With his attitude toward gun owners it’s not hard to imagine he would think it appropriate.

I always find it baffling that people conflate some repugnant anti-rights government support for something, like slavery, with government recognition of a right like the right to keep and bear arms or freedom of speech. Do they think other people can’t tell the difference? Or are they so lacking in the understanding of principles that they cannot distinguish the difference?

I suspect in this case it’s a matter of lack of understanding. If he thinks all it would take is having “enough of going to the funerals of innocent little children” then that demonstrates he has no clue as to the issues involved. Gun in the hands of private citizens save lives. That includes the lives of innocent children. Gun Control Kills Kids! It doesn’t save them.

We have the right to defend innocent life with the best tools available and no government has the authority to disallow that.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

A silencer speaks louder than words.

Via an Adam Baldwin Tweet (look at the words on the shirt in the picture).

Interview with Jeff Cooper of Gunsite

Posted on by

From the 1970s

Nothing new to those who’ve read his work, but it is interesting. He certainly never minced words.

When I heard the militaristic sort of music they used, I couldn’t help thinking that it would be taken as sarcasm today. Back then? I’m not sure.

Gun Song- Ten Cent Pistol by The Black Keys

Posted on by

Don’ t know much about them, don’t feel like research. Guess it’s pot luck for y’all.

Quote of the day—Ken White

Posted on by

As long as you ignore the fact that the shooting victims were innocent bystanders, hitting two people with three shots represents unusual excellence in marksmanship for the NYPD, matching another recent incident in which skilled NYPD officers were able to hit their target and nine bystanders with only 16 bullets.

Ken White
December 5, 2013
NYPD: Baby, You Know We Love You. Why Do You Make Us Angry Like That?
[See also some of the experiments done by Barron and I with our shooting club.

One should not make the assumption that because the police have such a terrible problem with shooting the wrong people that private citizens are worse. The last I heard innocent people were accidently hit by private citizens at a rate of about 2% of the time.

H/T to Sebastian.—Joe]

Not all democrats are slobs

Posted on by

Ry sent me a link which lead to this article.

I’m not going to say that just because democrats like Dick Durbin, George Miller, and Chuck Schumer live like slobs all of them do. My understanding is that Al Gore has a very nice home.

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.