In the old country we used to celebrate holidays with a day of rest, a picnic, going to the pool, etc. Until they came up with the idea of celebrating “through work”… kinda like this:
Adrian Bogdan
January 18, 2013
[I find it interesting in a very scary sort of way when I talk to people that lived under communism.
See also other comments from Bogdan.—Joe]
As I listened to Barack Obama’s inaugural speech yesterday, the memory of Sing-Sing and that particular prisoner floated into my memory.
Obama’s vision of America is Sing-Sing.
The government will provide just about everything you need to survive.
In return, you will surrender your freedom.
But don’t worry—and this is the most insidious part of post modern liberalism—slavery will be redefined as freedom.
Robert J. Avrech
January 22, 2013
Welcome to Obama’s Sing-Sing
[Roosevelt’s four “freedoms” can be met in a prison. Avrech merely expresses it in more direct language than some Obama and Roosevelt defenders would be comfortable with.
From talking to a fair number of people I’m shocked at the number who see it as a reasonable trade. I can see now why tyrants often come to power from the ashes of a collapsed economy. And because of this one might also postulate that those that drive an economy into collapse frequently want to be tyrants.
Avrech status with me is close to reaching the point where I put him in the same category as Tam. Tam is no longer eligible for QOTD because she would dominate nearly every day.—Joe]
If it’s the best thing I’ve read all day, why after all should I be prevented from posting it here just because I happen to be the one who wrote it?
Seen in comments at Uncle;
“Machineguns are in common use by military, and AS SUCH they are protected by the second amendment. Actually, if it is or can be considered an “arm” it is protected by the second amendment (the second amendment doesn’t have any qualifiers, exceptions or modifiers in it).
One might be able to make the case that strategic weapons like nukes and other WMDs are not, but even then you may be running afoul of the balance-of-power concept embodied in the second amendment.
In the American Revolution there were private owned war ships, were there not? Those would be analogs of our modern aircraft carriers and destroyers.
And don’t give me court precedent bullshit. If precedent defines (redefines) our rights, it means that any and all rights degrade and evaporate over time. No thanks. I’ll stick to original principles.”
There is a common error committed by our side. It is the use of arguments along the lines of, “Machineguns are ALREADY banned [and so leave our semiautomatics alone].” That’s a bit like saying to the alligator, “You already ate my buddy (and I didn’t like him a lot anyway) and so you should therefore leave me alone (I guess because your appetite should already be satisfied, or something…)”
In fact, if they can ban the most common small arms used by military and police, and get away with it, they can certainly ban everything else, just as the alligator can eat you some time after it ate your buddy. The fact of the matter has been established, so at best you’re only arguing over the details of the infringements at that point.
The Hughes Amendment to FOPA of 1986 should be rendered null and void, followed by GCA ’68 and NFA ’34.
The gun control advocate view of the Second Amendment is a house of cards – nay, a rather extensive castle of cards. Removing the foundation, which consists of factual errors, causes the whole to crumble.
David E. Young
January 13, 2013
Second Amendment Intent / Right to Keep and Bear Arms Explained
[Of course this depends on having an originalist view of Constitutional law. People who prefer to redefine words and intent as the “need” suits them don’t really care. But it is interesting that the anti-gun people, even in SCOTUS legal briefs will pretend to be originalists and make catastrophic errors or believe others won’t notice their deliberate attempts at deception.—Joe]
There are some fascinating results in this poll (my cached copy is here, H/T to Brennan from work). Keep in mind all of these results are post Newtown. I have selected the poll results I find the most interesting:
Q: Do you think tougher gun laws can help stop things like the Newtown school shooting, or do you think the people who commit these kinds of acts will always find the guns to commit violent acts?
A1: Tougher laws can help stop acts—22%
A2: People will always find guns—71%
A3: Laws help, but still find ways—5%
A4: Don’t know—1%Q: Would there be less violent crime in the United States if:
A1: Guns were banned—28%
A2: More law-abiding people had guns—58%
A3: Don’t know—15%Q: Does anyone in your household own a gun?
A1: Yes—52%
A2: Now—44%
A3: Don’t know/refused—5%Q: If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?
A1: Give up—22%
A2: Defy law—65%
A3: Don’t know—13%
All of the numbers have profound implications but look at that last one.
65% say they would defy the law! And my guess is that a fair number of the people in the “Don’t know” category said something of the equivalent of “None of your business.”
Hmmm…. there are about 315 million people in the U.S. 52% (households, not people, but still…) have guns so that is about 150 million people with guns of whom 65%, ~100 million, say they would defy the law. As of 2006 there were about 800,000 police officers of all jurisdictions. That means that if all the police sided with the government they would still be outnumbered by about 125 to 1.
Don’t bury you guns. Tell them Molon labe!
And if you’re anxious about your masculinity, if you aren’t quite sure whether those around you find you sufficiently strong and potent, the Bushmaster corporation has an answer for you. If you buy one of their semi-automatic rifles — like the kind Adam Lanza used to murder 20 children and six adults last week — you may “Consider your Man Card reissued.”
Paul Waldman
December 21, 2012
Not man enough? Buy a gun
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]
Via email:
Greetings,
SPC introduces it’s line of full size metal wall silhouettes. Shown is a Remington 870 that looks great on the wall of any gun room, den or shop.
The Plasma cut steel units are available rough as well as finished and painted.
SPC has heard of individuals burying full size silhouettes as decoys to throw off ground penetrating radar or imaging metal detectors that might be used by criminals to locate weapons, however SPC silhouettes are designed to be enjoyed on the wall, and SPC will not warranty silhouettes that have been buried.
SPC also has wall silhouettes of magazines, handguns and can do custom work as well.
For more info go to http://minisentryalarm.wordpress.com/
Regards,
Dennis Evers
dennis@thepocketpartner.com
I am of the opinion if you bury most or all of your guns to keep them safe from confiscation it is mostly a victory of the mind rather than something particularly useful. Putting out a few decoys might be useful though. And if you put them on the property of an anti-gunner it might even be entertaining.
Yesterday Barb L. and I went snowshoeing near Snoqualmie Pass. I had suggested we try it a couple months ago then just before Christmas Ry sent me an email tip about the Forest Service offering Guided Snowshoe Walks. I forwarded it on to Barb who, being the proactive person that she is, made the reservations for us.
I have done a fair amount of snowshoeing (mostly accessing Boomershoot territory during the winter months) but Barb had not done any. My snowshoes are rather old and I knew the newer kind probably were a lot better and wanted to see and try them out before buying a new pair.
The trail we were on did not require snowshoes:
I would have been fine with my normal size 14 hiking boots. But we went off trail a little bit and I also got to experience walking in the newer type of snowshoes.
Here are some pictures (picture below by Barb. All others by me):
Barb’s view of her feet. She is over 6′ tall so the sense of height is well founded.
There were other things that were also quite pleasant to look at:
The restroom was closed for the winter.
A mother brought her child along.
I didn’t know that some woodpeckers made rectangular holes.
We saw some people making snow caves.
We got some short history lessons as well.
We had left a very foggy Bellevue and had beautiful crystal clear sky on our walk. As we returned to the lower elevation it was like driving into a wall of dreariness.
My mother died December 29th, 2012. Here are her obituary and a few pictures:
Obituary photo.
Ellen Huffman passed away due to congestive heart failure and pneumonia at the age of 87, surrounded by family members at St. Joseph Regional Medical Center in Lewiston, ID on December 29, 2012. She was born, Grace Ellen King at Gritman Medical Center in Moscow, ID on July 18, 1925 to Charlotte Verna Davies King and Raymond McKinley King.
The family farmed near Moscow in the community of Joel. Her father was in poor health due to tuberculosis, so they moved to Long Beach, California where Ellen attended grade school. Her father died when she was 7 years old. Ellen graduated from Woodrow Wilson High School in Long Beach in 1943.
She went to a trade school and learned how to operate computer keypunch machines, comptometers and other business machines. She then worked at Bethlehem Steel in Alameda, CA as a keypunch operator until she had sufficient resources to proceed with her education.
She attended school at Washington State College in Pullman, WA for a short time before moving back to California. She then studied at Woodbury Business College in Burbank, CA where she completed her studies in bookkeeping.
She worked at Arthur A. Havens Co in Los Angeles before moving to Riverside, CA where she worked at Sears Roebuck in their auditing department.
She married Lowell Huffman on February 14, 1954 in Redlands, CA.
In the early years of their marriage, they farmed near Cavendish, ID in the summers while returning to California in the winter to find work.
After they had children in school, the family stayed in Idaho year round. The farm continued to grow as did the family with the birth of three children, Joe, Doug and Gary. After buying property, Ellen helped build the home where she would live from 1969 until the end of her days.
Ellen was an active member of the Teakean Community club for nearly 50 years and a member of the local Extension Club for many years.
She enjoyed knitting, sewing, quilting and other craft work. She made many quilts for friends, children and grandchildren. She enjoyed genealogy and did extensive research on her and her husband’s family tree.
She is survived by her husband, Lowell at the family home in Cavendish, three sons, Joe Huffman of Kirkland, WA, Doug Huffman and wife Julie of Cavendish, and Gary Huffman also of Cavendish. She is also survived by six grandchildren, James Huffman-Scott and wife Kelsey of Bellevue, WA, Kimberly Huffman-Scott of Troy, Xenia Vlieger and husband John of Anchorage, AK, Amy Faragher and husband Nathan of Orem, UT, Lisa Huffman of Kent, WA, Brad Huffman of Moscow and one great grandchild.
She was preceded in death by her parents and brother Louis King.
At her request, there will be no formal service.
Probably about 12 years old.
1945 while at Washington State College (now Washington State University).
Mom, me, Dad on August 20, 1976
February 1999. 45th Wedding anniversary.
December 24, 2012. One of the last few pictures taken of her.
I can easily buy a hand gun or a rifle without restriction. It is absurd that someone like me could ever have access to such dangerous weapons.
MY
Sonoma
January 19, 2013
Comment to Please Take Away My Right to a Gun
[Many people have said something to the effect, “They want to take other’s people’s guns away because they believe other people are the same as they are.” I never really expected to find someone who admitted that.—Joe]
Wendy Button almost begs Please Take Away My Right to a Gun.
After the civil war there were slaves that didn’t want their freedom either.
Just because a few people want their rights taken away from them doesn’t mean the rest of us do, that it is the right thing to do, or that we won’t fight to keep them.
Let’s stop mincing words; Let progressives — not all but certainly many — stop feigning tolerance for a gun culture we abhor and rampant gun ownership we cannot comprehend.
Mark Ridley Thomas
January 17, 2013
Supervisor for the Second District in Los Angeles County
The National Rifle Association Is Correct: I Do Want Your Guns
[First off, his admission should be used as evidence at his trial.
Second, if he has that tough of a problem with comprehension why isn’t he in an institution of some sort instead of public office?
Third, H/T to Say Uncle.—Joe]
Doesn’t it seem more than a little messed up when Pravda is urging us to never give up our guns, telling us we are wrong to go down the Marxist path while the New York Times is urging us to give up the constitution?
Trying to cut to the chase; there are two possible reasons that I can see, why a rogue government (and let’s be honest– that’s what we’ve had for some time now) would want to limit ammunition capacity. One would be simply to irritate and harass their political opposition, putting a few innocent people in jail now and then as a bonus. The other would be to limit the ability of the citizenry to fight against mass attacks (two or more assailants).i.e. to promote the ease of government attacking citizens. A possible third reason, going along in part with the first, would be to generally degrade society with more complex laws, more bureaucracy and more violent crime (criminals will have 30 round mags, but law-abiders won’t).
Any or all of those motivations would appeal naturally to any authoritarian, and to anyone who sees the founding of the U.S. as a problem (unfair, unjust, etc.)
If anyone can think of another reason, I’d like to know it.
ETA, 1-18-13; I’d thought of another, hoping maybe someone would chime in with it, and Publius pretty much, sort of did in comments here, though it’s not the way I would have put it. That motivation being to control the framework of the conflict (between liberty and authoritarianism), to keep us fighting THEIR fight and not ours. On that they have done a most excellent job– I bet you can find a million words, just today, about details of this or that proposed restriction and how it will not “work”. Well, it is working– they’re keeping us talking about THEIR ideas. As I’ve said before and elsewhere; it is a subtle yet crucial tactic, though most every little kid understands it. You see that bratty kid fussing loudly at his mother in the supermarket? He knows how to keep his mom off balance, off kilter, off her game, distracted, irritated, embarrassed, until he gets something from her (recently I noticed one such brat pause in his “tantrum” to look around and make sure he was getting a reaction from bystanders, then resume his fake tantrum, thus demonstrating that he understood exactly what he was doing). HE set the agenda, the framework of the conflict, not his mom. That one should have occurred to me foremost. It goes along with number one, but the distinction is between simply wanting to irritate your opposition on one hand, because you dislike them, and maintaining control of the whole discussion’s very framework on the other. The communists are experts at this.
Governor “Common Sense” Cuomo is a stumbling, bumbling example of the kind of person emotionally unsuited for high office, a fact the flaws in the draconian SAFE Act will show over time as unintended consequences catch up to bad legislation.
Bob Owens
January 17, 2013
Oops. Were there not LEO magazine exemptions in the rushed NY SAFE Act?
[H/T to Chris Knox who retweeted thegunwire.
The only thing I can add is that anyone who advocates for gun control is emotional, logically, and philosophically unsuited for any public job above toilet scrubber.—Joe]
H/T to Jon H. from the gun email list at work.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. After all he is a politician and he is from Chicago:
A South Side alderman is asking for City Council hearings on an unorthodox gun control measure that would allow for GPS tracking of firearms.
WBBM Newsradio Political Editor Craig Dellimore reports Ald. Willie Cochran (20th), a former police officer, has suggested that global positioning system chips be embedded in new guns, and retrofitted on existing firearms, so they could be located if they go missing.
“Just like if your car gets stolen, OnStar can tell you where your car is. If your gun gets stolen, and you report it, we should be able to find that gun,” he said.
Your car has a battery that weighs 40 pounds and is recharged every time you use the car.
You cellphone is a better analogy but doesn’t make his case any better. A cellphone has a standby time of, at most, a few days and requires a service provider such as AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, or Verizon in order to report it’s position.
That doesn’t even take into account that a criminal who steals one with a GPS will remove the battery or destroy the electronics.
One of the better comments I read on the site:
The difference between stupidity and genius: Genius has it’s limits, stupidity doesn’t, case proven by Willie Cochran.
Stupidity this strong should cause him to burst into flames hot enough to melt tungsten. The reporters that didn’t call him out on the stupid should smolder.
I think I’ve read several hundred product “reviews” that go along the lines of;
“It looks and feels great. I can’t wait to go out and shoot it.”
I’m sorry, but “wow-I-can’t-wait-to-get-out-and-try-it” is not a review. Please don’t do that. Sometimes I can read through dozens of “reviews” before I find a single review. I fully understand your excitement and pleasure upon receiving a new product, but that’s a reaction, not a review. Please don’t waste people’s time.
I suppose that the word “clip” being used to refer to a magazine must have started in earnest during the period in which the M1 Garand rifle was common issue. “Toss me another clee-up, Cletus” would have been used to apply to either a 1911 magazine or a Garand clip (or Tommy gun, M3, et al, magazine) among comrades, maybe. I still talk with the occasional W.W. II or Korean War vet who says “clip” all the time (and if they’re from Alabama it is “clee-up”, with the extra syllable, as in “She-it” or the number Foe-er”)
And so we’ve been harping on it for a while now. Some media types are starting get a whiff of a clue, but just to be safe, they’re using both terms, talking about “magazine clips” which, technically, would be devices that hold two or more magazines together. I’ve seen those for sale. Not that your average media pundit would ever understand.
Anyway; just off the top of my head, I don’t recall ever seeing an ammunition clip than hold more than ten rounds (unless you count a belt). You?
I suppose some of this misuse is intentional, just to irritate people. When you read the actuall laws, they tend to use the term magazine when they mean magazine.
Gun control is prior restraint. Since prior restraint for the First Amendment is unconstitutional it is also unconstitutional when applied to the Second Amendment.
The classic example of falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater can be extended to illustrate.
Prior restraint would be requiring a gag on everyone as they enter the theater because someone might falsely yell fire.
The solution we have is to punish those that do, not gag everyone who enters the building.
“Gun free zones” are the same sort of thing. You must leave your gun behind because it is feared that you might use it in a criminal manner.
The solution must be that we punish those that injure innocent people and we must not attempt to prevent all people from using their gun at all.
One might claim that the risks are so high that prior restraint is justified as in drunk driving laws. There are two counters to that. 1) Driving is a privilege, not a specific enumerated right; and 2) Only in extremely rare cases does driving drunk have any benefit to society.
And even if we were to accept crime prevention is a valid means to protect innocent life we have problems. Does that mean to prevent rape we should castrate all the men? How about sewing all vaginas shut so women can’t engage in prostitution? Or removing eyes so people can’t engage in voyeurism? And to prove I’m not stuck on sex crimes, we can prevent fights by shackling the hands and feet of everyone. We can prevent drunk driving and public drunkenness by banning alcohol. Slander can be prevented by removing people’s vocal cords. Libel can be prevented by banning publication of, well, everything. And while we are at it we can prevent theft by abolishing private property.
Crime “prevention” is a very hot button for me. There is no limit to the evil that can be justified and/or enabled once you accept the premise that it is acceptable to prevent crime by restricting liberty.
The very name of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence demonstrates they are a very misguided and dangerous organization.
We are better than this.
Revolution works best when the authorities are weakened by a transition period, when they were once oppressive, but have been liberalizing, or where they are asserting a new level of authority that the people are not used to. It is in these transition points that revolutions are most effective because the authorities are not ready to cope with them and the people are made bold and desperate by the uncertainty.
Daniel Greenfield
January 14, 2013
And This is Revolution
[H/T to Rudy Kearney.
Interesting stuff. Almost all assertions with a bit of anecdote thrown it, but still interesting.—Joe]
