Watch it! That slope is slippery

Posted on by

This is interesting:

This case isn’t about censoring information, but about complying with French law.

Isn’t that like saying the following?

  • This isn’t about discrimination, but about complying with Jim Crow law.
  • This isn’t about rape, but about complying with the right of a man to have sex with his wife under state law.
  • This isn’t about suppressing political speech, but about complying with laws to respect the President.

People need to be careful about the rationalizations and precedent they set. It’s not very far down the slippery slope to, “This isn’t about political assassination, but about removing a tyrant from power.”

I thought so!

Posted on by

Several years ago a friend suggested I read Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. I read the book but was pretty annoyed at it. Among other things that I thought were faulty one of the claims was that a low radiation environment was required for life. I was skeptical. Sure, all life as we know it is damaged by radiation but that doesn’t mean that some life form couldn’t evolve that actually required radiation, right? Wouldn’t intelligent life from that evolutionary chain conclude the earth would be lifeless because the lack of radiation required for certain of their life processes didn’t exist?

It turns out we now have life on earth that flourish in a high radiation environment. You can thank the Chernobyl disaster for that.

Perhaps it’s Stockholm Syndrome

Posted on by

This is the equivalent of a rapist using a condom and lubricant:

…this is the future of airport security here in the nifty fifty, but the changes that are taking places in Charlotte and Dallas are certainly something that we can support. Think more comfortable spaces, better signage, and even places specifically intended to use for slipping your shoes back on.

The perpetrators should be prosecuted not encouraged. I suspect Stockholm Syndrome has something to do with it.

Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

Posted on by

Under the First Amendment, California is not allowed to compile a list of books you can read, and under the Second Amendment the state should not be allowed to compile a list of handguns you can own.

Alan M. Gottlieb
November 6, 2013
GLOCK FILES AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING SAF’S CALIFORNIA CASE
[Nor is California allowed to compile a list of religions you may join, a list of crimes that you are required to confess to, or a list of people exempt from the 13th Amendment protection.

SAF, “winning back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time”.—Joe]

High Sloth

Posted on by

While riding in the family 4×4 pickup with my daughter today, I spied a bumper sticker; “Moscow High Pride”

“I wonder what that means” I said. “What kind of pride is high pride?”
“It’s Moscow High School pride” she said.
“Ah yes of course. I was thinking that high pride was being preferred over, say medium or low pride. (pause) Isn’t pride one of the seven deadly sins, and so why is it being promoted? We might as well promote some of the others then. How about Moscow High gluttony?”
“Moscow High sloth?”
(Laughter)

Pride is pretty popular among the seven. We’re to appreciate the claim, “Made with pride in the U.S.” or “Proud to be an American” or “The few, the proud, the Marines.” We are expected to be proud of our work and so on. We’re taught pride. Maybe “something you could be very proud of, but aren’t” is a better way of looking at it. Objectivity may allow me to recognize that I’ve done something good, but pride has nothing necessarily to do with accomplishing good things, and it can certainly be a factor in doing bad things.

ACA leads toward divorce

Posted on by

Remember what I posted a little while ago? Looks like it’s going mainstream as a consideration. No, I’m not predicting a sudden tsunami of two-income divorces, but society changes a bit at a time, incrementally, at the margins. And at the margins, ObamaCare makes divorce look like an economically sensible thing to do, and it’s yet another drag on the economy and social stability as people try to game the system for personal benefit at the expense of “the greater good.” The incentives in the law are really insane.

More on “Barrel Harmonics”

Posted on by

There is incontrovertible proof that those who talk about barrel harmonics do not know what they’re talking about, and that proof is in the very term they use to talk about it.

First; the term “harmonic” is a very specific term for an integral multiple of a fundamental vibration frequency. Since a barrel is (usually) a somewhat irregular object tethered at one end, I question whether most of them have a harmonic overtone series at all (like a guitar string or the air column inside a flute) or a primarily inharmonic one, like a bell or a cymbal. “You keep using that word…”

Second; the fundamental frequency of the “resonating” barrel is being ignored (by the language at least) yet the fundamental is often, or probably, more significant, i.e. it probably has a higher amplitude than the higher frequency vibrations. That’s usually very much the case with a vibrating body unless it’s being dampened at the fundamental. So why, particularly, are we discussing overtones (harmonic ones or inharmonic ones) and not the fundamental?

Third; don’t even talk to me about barrel harmonics, or barrel fundamental vibration, or inharmonic barrel overtones (A.K.A. “partials”) on an AK or a 30 Carbine, et al barrel. Just don’t.

I once had to do this with a class of music majors during a seminar I did at the U of Idaho. We were talking about advanced tweaks, the last one percent, of what goes into the design and structure of a musical instrument to make it a really fine one, and the students were responding as though I were talking about major issues. My fault. I should have been more clear at the outset.

So here it is; you don’t address the last one percent on your AK. It’s not a beanfield rifle. Please. There are several other factors that totally overwhelm the last one percent (like the previous 99 for example) and so if you address the last one percent as though it were “the issue” you’re ignoring the issues that matter.

Quote of the day—Ashley

Posted on by

Nobody cares about your guns, if you hunt with them or (I hope) someday kill yourself with them.

…

Everyone else considers “ya’ll” crazy. We strive for the day that your ancient propaganda goes extinct. You, Mr. Redneck, are a dying breed of ignorance.

Ashley
November 5, 2013
Comment to Quote of the day—The Coquette
[Why are anti-gun people so violent? Oh, yeah. Now I remember.

Don’t ever forget. There are a sizeable number of anti-gun people that want you dead. They want your children dead. This is just one willing to announce it on my blog. They believe their desires are so mainstream they don’t even have to hide that wish and will tell it to your virtual face. And perhaps it is a mainstream view in San Luis Obispo California where Ashley is (IP address 66.215.49.99). Yet people look at me a little strange when I tell them I try to avoid California because those people hate “my kind”.

People will say “it’s just talk”. “You don’t have to worry about someone like that.”, they will reassure me. Probably not. But I’ll bet a lot of people didn’t think they would have to worry about a half nuts failed artist in prison writing a book about “My Struggle” either.

And you do you notice that in her world view I’m ignorant and crazy? I’m quoting U.S Supreme Court cases, Federal Appeals Court cases, and Gandhi. What does she reference to bolster her view? Nothing. And claims of me being ignorant by people who have spent more than two minutes of time talking to me are non-existent. I am therefore forced to conclude that Ashley has based her conclusion on ignored data. Which, if I’m not mistaken, makes her the ignorant or possibly crazy one.—Joe]

Right to carry violated under color of law

Posted on by

It’s possible this could be a good case to take much further and set a good precedence:

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Arkansas on behalf of a legal resident alien, alleging that his right to keep and bear arms is being violated by a state law that prevents him from obtaining a concealed carry license.

The lawsuit, on behalf of Martin Pot (pronounced Poht), a citizen of the Netherlands, challenges the Arkansas statute because it “completely prohibits resident legal aliens from the concealed carry of guns, in public, for the purpose of self-defense.

SAF, “winning back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time”.

Progressive violence

Posted on by

I was looking at some of the mining history in Idaho and found this:

Labor unrest was a problem throughout the district in the 1890s, and martial law was declared on two occasions. In 1899 labor agitators destroyed the Bunker Hill mill with a massive explosion of dynamite (Figure 35). Attempts, often successful, to destroy property were a favorite tactic used by union organizers against companies whose management was opposed to having unions at their mines.

BunkHillAfterExplosionFigure 35. Bunker Hill mill following explosion in 1899. (Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 67, p. 648).

And from here:minewar

Business are frequently criticized for their oppression and violence against workers. Progressives/liberals/communists do not have any high ground to claim.

Quote of the day—The Coquette

Posted on by

Dude, you can wave court cases in my face all you want. At the end of the day, you’re still the wingnut who’s against centralized firearm registration and liability insurance because guns are like bibles.

The Coquette
November 3, 2013
Comment to On gun control
[There are so many lessons to be learned from this thread.

My response:

If suggesting the Second Amendment should be treated like the First Amendment means one should be called a “wingnut” then you will have to call a bunch of Federal Judges the same: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-…

And if you can’t be persuaded by the laws, the Federal Courts, or me gently pointing out the facts that makes you the dictionary definition of a bigot. I’m so glad we are a ruled by laws limited by the enumerated powers of the Constitution rather than by bigots. Otherwise we would still have Jim Crow type laws still being enforced, Jews being denied entry into schools, and concentration camps for the Japanese.

If being a defender of civil rights makes someone a “wingnut” in your book then I have a lot of “wingnut” company I am proud to be associated with. Are you just as proud of your association with the KKK?

Coquette response:

You’re not a defender of civil rights, Joe. You’re just an old white man in a fedora leaving creepy comments on my website.

It’s sad, really. You’re so myopic that you can’t even look past the barrel of your own gun and focus on the greater good.

My response:

All the evidence presented here is that the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated civil right. All nine Supreme Court justices in the Heller decision agree with that. That your refuse to acknowledge that and insist that my defense of that right is somehow contrary to being a defender of civil rights takes a great deal of arrogance or is evidence of serious delusions.

We are done here. But thank you for playing along. This thread is
great material for my blog. You will be featured with Quote of the Day status on Tuesday.

Coquette response:

Looking forward to Tuesday, big guy. In the meantime, keep on using words that you don’t understand.

It should not be surprising that in addition to being prejudiced against gun owners that they have hostile opinions about people of certain ages and skin color.

Coquette is not the least bit concerned with the Bill of Rights or court rulings. All that matters is what they think is “the greater good” and looking down on people that disagree with their “superior” opinion. There is not even a glimmer of recognition that they might be wrong.

But that Coquette is concerned with “the greater good” tells us all we really need to know. The concept of individual rights is either alien or distasteful to them. The “greater good” is the mantra of the tyrant and the ever present excuse for genocide.

That someone can be that blatant in their disregard for the rule of law and individual rights is extremely scary. Even President Obama and VP Biden say they “respect” the Second Amendment and the courts rulings. They don’t of course, but they claim to. This person completely ignores the concept of rights. This is how governments end up murdering millions of their own people. People like this get into power and the rule of law disappears.

Again, the Second Amendment is to protect people from liberals.—Joe]

Well there’s your problem

Posted on by

Via Sebastian we have this article whining about the lack of funding for the ATF. I only had to read as far as the second paragraph to see what the problem was:

The ATF, charged with keeping track of the nation’s 300 million guns…

Listen guys, the ATF has no more authority to keep track of the nation’s guns than it, or any other government agency, does the nation’s Bibles, Korans, and Torahs. And even if it were given the authority it would not be possible to keep track of those guns anymore than the DEA, with twice the funding, can keep track of the recreational drugs in this country.

And if you want to look at it another way try this: Our country is deeply in debt and getting worse. If the ATF isn’t doing the job you think it should be doing with the funding it is getting then let’s just get rid of it. Then put the money someplace where it would do some good. I would like to suggest paying off the debt.

CSGV and VISA

Posted on by

CSGV now wants VISA to stop its affiliate program with the NRA:

Visa is helping to pay for NRA lobbyists who advocate against common-sense policies like background checks on gun buyers, and for dangerous legislation that would force K-12 schools, colleges, places of worship and businesses to allow the carrying of loaded guns on their premises.

I have a suggestion for CSGV. Why don’t you guys compare what a boycott by CSGV members would mean for VISA versus them dumping the NRA? It may be that this plan “can’t get the votes necessary” to succeed just like the gun control legislation they have been pushing.

The NRA has something like five million members. How many does the CSGV have?

Oh! That’s right. CSGV doesn’t have members so we can’t really do a direct comparison on that parameter. How about the number of people that show up for the annual meeting? The NRA has something on the order of 75,000. How many does the CSGV have?

Oh! That’s right. The CSGV doesn’t announce any annual meetings or make it known how many people show up at their meetings. But then a small apartment balcony with a couple lawn chairs is probably all they would need or could afford so announcing such a thing doesn’t make any more sense than demanding VISA drop the NRA.

Consensus with Biden on gun laws

Posted on by

I’ve been reading (listening to it actually) Emily Gets Her Gun: …But Obama Wants to Take Yours. In it she tells of V.P. Biden telling Jim Baker, “regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

Only 44 out of 72,659 denials of the NICS check were prosecuted in 2010. If the firearm buyer told the truth on form 4473 when they tried to purchase the firearm the seller would have either been denied the sale on the spot and no NICS check would have been performed or they would have passed the NICS check. If they lied then they committed a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

I realize V.P. Biden has a problem with his head whistling when the wind blows so I’m not surprised he didn’t think of the following when he tried to get consensus on gun law changes. Gun owners, the NRA, and Biden should all be able get behind legislation to get rid of gun laws the Federal Government can’t and won’t enforce. If they aren’t going to prosecute people for improperly filling out a form then lets get rid of the form. Otherwise people might as well scribble “Screw you!” on it and call it good. I might be okay with that last approach too. It would be a common sense compromise, right?

Make it moot

Posted on by

New York City’s has a “stop and frisk” policy where the police stop, question, and frisk people they deem suspicious. If drugs or weapons are found the evidence is used in criminal charges against them. In a typical year 500,000 to 600,000 stops are made. 86% to 90% of the time the person is innocent.

A Federal Judge told New York City to knock it off. But then she was removed from the case. Paul Barrett wants the city to use this opportunity “to come to a consensus on how the NYPD can continue its decades-long successful campaign to reduce violent crime, while at the same time respecting the Constitution’s ban on discriminatory government policies.“

As near as I can tell Barrett doesn’t have a problem with the searches as long as they don’t discriminate by race on who is being stopped for searches. I find this almost surreal. What would get it through his head that ignoring Fourth Amendment rights is a dangerous path to travel? Barrett’s mother escaped Europe as a little girl. Many of her relatives died in the camps during WWII. Maybe if consensus were for the police to refrain from frisking people unless their papers aren’t order. Have the police ask nicely and say, “Papers please.”

No. The “consensus” should be for the cops to cease stopping and searching innocent people. And another thing is the people should pass “constitutional carry” legislation and also end the war on drugs. After that what would be the point of frisking people? Suspicion of stolen property? Sure. Wounds from when they got shot attempting to harm an innocent person? Sure. But only after articulable probable cause that the person was a person of interest in a crime.

The number of innocent people stopped should be on the order of 10% or maybe 20%. When the innocent stop rate is 90% that is conclusive evidence the police need tall shiny boots and a German accent.

Quote of the day—Mailin Wong

Posted on by

The best is to move to another more civilized country when people don’t get boners just by watching guns.

Mailin Wong
May 5, 2013
Comment to Staples starts selling 3-D printers
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via email from Sean Y.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Emily Miller

Posted on by

The only way a mandatory check would work would be if the government could track every one of the 300 million firearms in the United States. And then the criminals would ask permission before buying them.

Emily Miller
Emily Gets Her Gun: …But Obama Wants to Take Yours
[300 million guns? We have computers that could do that, right? They built a computer system that signed people up for Obamacare so they should be able to do that for gun owners, right?*

These would be necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for “universal background check to work”.

They would also have to shut off the smugglers. You should assume this would work about as well as the War on Drugs has worked.

They would also have to prevent all the 3-D printers from making new guns. You should assume this would work about as well as the peeing into the wind.—Joe]

*In fact the Canadian gun registry (disbanded after costing 2 billion rather than 2 million) was built by the same people that wrote the Obamacare website.

Guns stop mass shooters

Posted on by

A good case could be made that the more people that have guns the less likely mass shootings are to occur. It a little tough to do the experiment because how do you know of a mass shooting was stopped because more people have guns?

But there is evidence even if we can’t do a fully controlled experiment like we would like. There are a number of cases listed here (H/T to John Lott) where the bad guy left a note or had made a modest start toward challenging previous mass shooting body counts when they were stopped by someone with a CCW and a gun.

There is also evidence presented in John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime as well. In the first edition (not sure about later revisions) the number of mass shootings prior to allowing people to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in public (no CCW) there were a modest number of mass shootings, then after passage of right to carry laws the mass shootings in that political jurisdiction went to zero. This was prior to the Gabby Giffords shooting which, of course, was in the gun friendly state of Arizona. But given that one exception when mass shooting occurs you can make a very safe bet that it happened in a “Gun Free Zone”.

It’s time to stop the mass shootings. We must stop government from infringing on our rights.

Comment backup

Posted on by

I’m backing up this comment here in case “Reasoned Discourse” breaks out over there.

Gun ownership is a specific enumerated right. Driving a car is a privilege.

Gun ownership is much closer compared to freedom of religion. We don’t, and can’t legally, require all the Jews, Catholics, and Muslims to register, pass tests, and register all their religious books. And so it is with the right to keep and bear arms.

There’s some truth in it

Posted on by

BlondeObamacare

Via email from JoeyD.