Quote of the day—Reflections of a shallow pond

Posted on by

I’m not proposing to rid society of all firearms. But how about if we start with the handguns?

Reflections of a shallow pond
June 1, 2012
Slaughter in Seattle: Why Gun Control is Out of Control.
[Yeah. A good first start. I got it.

Mr. Shallow Pond needs to spend a little time thinking on this. I would like to suggest he investigate the time when this country tried to rid society of “demon rum”. And what cave has he been hiding in such that he has Internet access and hasn’t heard of the war on (some) drugs? Does he think efforts to “rid society” of handguns as a start is going to turn out any better? As a final lesson, in more ways than one, I would like to suggest Mr. Shallow Pond look up the phrase molṑn labé.

I especially “like” how he doesn’t propose a plan for how to get around the Constitutional issues. My guess is that like most people demanding the government “do something” the Bill of Rights and enumerated powers is totally irrelevant to them.

For some reason I keep thinking it’s a mind not a pond that we are seeing the reflections of here.—Joe]

This could be good

Posted on by

I like what I see here:

Analysis and counter analysis

Posted on by

I found this analysis by Richard M. Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City and a former president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (it was called Handgun Control, Inc. while Aborn was president) insightful:

Supporters of gun control tend to be broad-based progressives who also support education reform, reproductive choice, marriage equality and other issues. In a country with low voter turnout, the ability to form single-issue voting blocs is a powerful political tool. The NRA has succeeded in doing this; the gun-control movement has not.

But when Aborn tries to elaborate on why this is true I think he misses, perhaps deliberately, some important points. For example he claims:

The communication strategy of the National Rifle Association centers on the idea that passage of any gun-control measure is a step toward the elimination of all guns. Framing the issue this way foments an element necessary to sustaining a broad movement that votes: the personal interest of its members.

While there is some truth to this I think it is important to look at the symmetry issues. How could have the gun-control movement (GCM) framed the issue that would have achieved similar and sustaining interest in their members?

If the issue had been framed as, “All we want is some minor tweaks in the law” what kind of support would they receive from their target base? I think their base would think of them as cowards without vision and look somewhere else to donate their money and time. While it is very difficult to show cause and effect in this case I think it is interesting that declining support for Handgun Control Inc. is strongly correlated with their name change to The Brady Campaign.

Therefore it seems the only way for them to have framed the issue to get more support on their side was a ban on all or as many types of guns as they could. They could have, and there are indications they did, privately pitch their agenda as incrementalism with a ban being their ultimate goal. Sort of “We don’t want to ban all guns” .

Since framing the issue as a total ban is a motivator for the base of both sides why did the GCM shy away from that but the gun freedom movement (GFM) embraced it? From a merely logical/symmetric perspective shouldn’t it be just as damaging/beneficial to whichever side framed it in that manner? There may be more than one reasons why that is not true but the most obvious one to me is that the GFM has a much larger base than the GCM. Hence for every “unit of motivation” the GCM were to gain by framing the issue as a total ban they realized the GFM would have gained, perhaps, 10 units.

I believe this knowledge essentially forced the GCM to work “under the radar”. In order to motivate their base they had to tell them the ultimate goal was much further along the total ban scale than what they could publically admit to. This may have created a climate where habitual deceit became institutionalized. Before the “information age” and with the strong media support they got away with this and almost won. If the Internet had been another 10 years coming to fruition I think we would be looking at U.K like restrictions today instead of planning the end of days for the GCM. This culture of deceit is unlikely to ever be successful again. And without the deceit they are essentially powerless.

I agree with Aborn’s next point:

Virtually all of the long-term grass-roots political movements in U.S. history have centered on direct stakeholders with a sustainable, single-minded focus that determines not only how an individual votes but also provides a strong motivation to vote. Most supporters of the early suffragist movement, abortion rights, civil rights, gay marriage and even the NRA have had a direct stake in the outcomes of their issues.

…

In a country with low voter turnout, the ability to form single-issue voting blocs is a powerful political tool. The NRA has succeeded in doing this; the gun-control movement has not.

In his proposals to address this point he completely ignores what I believe to be an insurmountable obstacle. The problem for the GCM is they do not have an immediate and direct threat if they loose the battle. The GFM does. The GFM would lose their guns and in some cases their livelihoods (manufactures, people in the firearm distribution chain, ranges, trainers, hunting guides, etc.) if the GCM were to win. Because the consequences of the threat are so much higher is the reason the people in the GFM have a strong tendency to be single issue voters.

What I find most telling about Aborn’s analysis is that he almost totally ignores two other issues.

In regards to the constitutional issue. He only says:

In 2008, the Supreme Court established in District of Columbia v. Heller that individuals have the right to own guns — and that the possession of firearms is subject to reasonable regulations.

He does not elaborate on what the definition of “reasonable” might be. There are indications that strict scrutiny is going to be the end result and almost for certain the standard will be intermediate scrutiny or higher. The problem for the GCM is that none of the proposed “reasonable restrictions” can meet the intermediate scrutiny standard. To pass intermediate scrutiny the law “is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives”. I take this to mean that the law has to actually be somewhat effective. Light restrictions such as requiring ID to buy ammunition are not going to achieve anything and heavy restrictions clearly run into constitutional barriers. An even stronger claim can be made that the GCM has trouble with achieving effectiveness with any of law at any time throughout history.

The other issue Aborn totally ignores. That issue is the benefits of gun ownership. This is a gaping hole in the all the battle plans the GCM’s have ever fielded. And the GFM has used this hole to defeat them. The GCM does not, and realistically they probably cannot, recognize that firearm ownership has benefits. The best they can do is vigorously assert there are no net benefits. As long as law enforcement officers carry firearms that assertion is going to ring very hollow.

Aborn concludes that the GCM can still succeed if they just do three things:

  1. Convince Americans there is violent crime problem,
  2. Forge an alliance with gun owners on “reasonable restrictions.”
  3. Win the gun control is effective in reducing “gun deaths” argument.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s the violent crime problem was a motivator for gun control. But now violent is a motivator for private ownership of firearms. Aborn is living in the past on this one.

The GFM is very skeptical of “reasonable restrictions.” The GCM has just been way too deceptive for far too many years to believe they can be trusted. Forging an alliance with the great deceivers is going to be a very hard task.

He, probably deliberately, used the false metric of “gun death”. All reasonable research on the effectiveness of gun control uses a net benefit standard rather deaths by gun which the GCM nearly always throw in suicide and justified homicide. And as soon as the proper standard is used they lose the argument.

My conclusion is that Aborn’s position is nearly hopeless. He has nearly insurmountable obstacles at almost every step. I suspect he is desperate and is trying to rally support for a cause he knows is nearly dead but has dedicated the last 20 years to. It must be incredibly depressing to devote your life to something then see it die. That can make a person do desperate things and to not see things clearly. I believe that has happened in this case.

Quote of the day—Bruce Ramsey

Posted on by

We live with guns and occasionally worry about them. If this leaves you feeling at a disadvantage, Lynne, maybe you need to get one.

Bruce Ramsey
May 31, 2012
Seattle shootings: Is it time for gun control?
[Considering the political atmosphere of Seattle in general and the Seattle Times in general this was actually a pretty positive editorial about guns. It certainly wasn’t “SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.” or molṑn labé! But compared to what Seattle Times editorials would have been 15 years ago it is absolutely awesome.

And I would like to go on record as making a public offer to Lynne Varner, or anyone else in the Seattle area, to take them shooting for their first time.—Joe]

Lying in hopes of winning

Posted on by

I recently received an email containing the following from “The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus” (emphasis in the original):

Over the last few years, the gun lobby has secretly tried to change state laws and force concealed weapons on college campuses in many states. We need your help, so that we can continue our successful fight against the gun lobby over the next few months.

The gun lobby has been secretive about trying to change state laws? How would this even be possible? State laws are changed by legislative actions which are far from secret.

The gun lobby has tried to force concealed weapons on college campuses? How would this even be possible? Has the gun lobby has been trying to ram vehicles through road blocks?

They have been successful? This is only true if they define success as not losing every single time. Our progress is not as fast as we would like but we have not experienced any loses. We have had some wins and many failures to score. But those failures to score are almost certain to be less and less likely. The specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is very unlikely to be declared null and void on college campuses. All it will take is for one or two good court cases and hundreds if not thousands of colleges with repressive laws against gun ownership will have their rules struck down by court order.

Soon they will be irrelevant and out of a job. They are desperate and that explains their lies.

My advice to them is to change their names and go get another job.

Why change their names? Think of it this way; What are the job prospects of someone who used to be a high ranking Klan member?

Free batteries from Crimson Trace

Posted on by

This is kind of cool (via email from Tiffany Hopp, MarCom Manager, at Crimson Trace):

For Immediate Release;

May 31, 2012

Crimson Trace Extends Popular ‘Batteries For Life’ Program

(Wilsonville, OR) Crimson Trace, the Oregon-based manufacturer of the World’s only grip-activated laser sights today announced plans to extend its hugely popular ‘Batteries for Life’ scheme. CTC customers will receive free replacement batteries for the lifetime of their laser sights, in exchange for registering their products with the company’s customer service department.

“There are very few things in life that are truly free,” said Nate Hoke, Director of Customer service for Crimson Trace. “This is one of them. Just register online or via our 800 number and every year, we’ll send a fresh set of batteries for your Lasergrips® or Laserguard® product for as long as you own it.” Hoke reported that many customers were still using the original batteries in their sights after six or seven years. “While Crimson Trace products have the longest run times in the industry, laser sights are safety devices and as such, should have regular battery changes. We’re proud to be able to offer this program to our loyal customers – it’s one more way for us to show our appreciation to the people who have supported us over the years.”

All Crimson Trace products are proudly designed engineered and manufactured in the USA and fit the widest range or popular self-defense handguns, including Glock, Smith & Wesson, Kimber and Springfield.

For further information contact;

Iain Harrison
Media Relations Manager
CRIMSON TRACE CORPORATION
iainh@crimsontrace.com
1-800-442-2406 x1303

I use Crimson Trace lasers on some of the guns I teach beginners with. It think they make fine products.

The Communist Manifesto

Posted on by

Over the weekend I read The Communist Manifesto for the first time. I expected some sort of almost magical power to draw me into embracing the evil. I was surprised, disappointed, and finally I had a sinking feeling of emptiness as I thought about it more.

The book was like a synopsis of a poorly written alternate history novel. Assumptions critical to the reasoning which followed were unsupported and, at least to my present day perspective, either blatantly wrong or highly suspect. Even conceding the authors their assumptions without contest the conclusions reached with such confidence were as unstable as any house of cards.

And this is the book that convinced millions of people to murder hundreds of millions of others? Is this all that it takes to remove the thin veneer off of civilized behavior and enable the most evil empires human history has ever known? Self-described intellectuals accept this book as a valid political philosophy? These “intellectuals” regard themselves as my betters? Wow!

The typical two year old child or even the family dog wouldn’t accept the conclusions unless they were forced into compliance. It’s no wonder the authors state, “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can only be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

But in talking to Ry about the book I got a new perspective. He said that he first read it when he was about 12 years old and it was like the scales had been removed from his eyes and he saw everything clearly for the first time. Furthermore he said it is no wonder Communists killed off older people with any education or even if they wore glasses. It’s no wonder they attack capitalist societies through the school system. We were and are in a war most people don’t even realize exists (see also The Handbook of 5GW). Ry went on to claim that the book was aimed at the young and “the people with guns, the muscle” who would do the “heavy lifting” of “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” These would be people without the intellectual rigor to challenge the assumptions, reasoning, or conclusions.

Okay… I can buy into that hypothesis for now.

The obvious question then becomes why do the people who claim to be the intellectuals of our society so much more likely to advocate for Communism?

I know a professor who admits he is a Marxist. He once insisted our family should not be allowed to own the home we do because we “don’t need such a big house.” The “government should let someone with a bigger family use that house.” This professor told me the previous dozens or hundreds failed attempts at implementing a Communist utopia failed because, “The right people weren’t in charge. We just need to have the right people.” I explained that concentrated power of that sort attracts the “wrong” people who would always succeed in the acquisition and control of that power. He insisted that “we just need to get the right people in power.” I then sent him a copy of The Road to Serfdom. I don’t know if he even read it but I do know his attitude has not changed. He believes he is an intellectual superior in our society. He is a professor. He knows what is best for our society. Of course you know he voted for Obama. But I could have given you 20 chances and you would not have guessed that he is a professor in a school of business.

So one answer to the obvious question is we are at war and most people don’t even know it.

Another possible answer is something Sarah once asked me, “Have you ever noticed that liberals are not very bright?” I was a bit shocked. Someone else noticed? I am a bit sensitive about challenging the intellectual capacity of others because I know there are many things that I don’t know and seem to be beyond my capacity to understand (such as the mass appeal of The Communist Manifesto). But here was someone else, without an engineer’s mind, who noticed it too. As I pondered the book and Ry’s observations I realized that was another plausible answer to the obvious question.

The Communist Manifesto tells its readers that supporters of Communism are the intelligent people. They deserve, are destined to, and the good of all human kind depends on them, being in charge. That they “understand” the benefits of Communism to the bafflement of others is probably proof to them that they are the intellectual superiors of those that think Communism is, at best, prone to abuse.

In other words the second plausible answer to the obvious question is that those that advocate Communism are not very bright people who want to believe they are the brightest of all people. And that The Communist Manifesto tells them they are the brightest enables them to then claim themselves as intellectuals.

Regardless of the plausible answers I have no choice but to view Communism as a cancer which has metastasized beyond the point which surgery or chemotherapy can do little more than delay the death of the host. And it can all be traced back to one little book. I’ve written thousands of blog posts on freedom related topics and thousands of others far smarter than me have written hundreds of times more than me with hundreds of examples of Communism evil and failure. Yet we are losing to a couple of guys who have been dead for 120 years who wrote something that was little more than a synopsis of a poorly written alternate history novel.

Man, that sure does suck.

It’s a Matter of Context

Posted on by

I point out, to those who are befuddled by the Chinese criticizing America’s human rights record, that we are talking about one communist government criticizing another.


See?  It makes perfect sense.


“Human rights” you see, means the right to be controlled by an all-knowing and all-powerful government.


Better now?

Quote of the day—Harold Berman

Posted on by

A child says, “It’s my toy.” That’s property law. A child says, “You promised me.” That’s contract law. A child says, “He hit me first.” That’s criminal law. A child says, “Daddy said I could.” That’s constitutional law.

Harold Berman
[Via email from Rolf.

I have often thought of the property law angle. Animals even have a sense of what belongs to them. This has the potential to be used as an argument against Communism (as if more arguments were necessary).

But the extension to the others is enlightening and makes one ponder. Are these concepts universal? Or is there a strong environmental component that is injected by the time the child is able to speak? If these are universal then are there psychological or socials costs “paid” when the government (or even individuals in positions of parent/teacher/neighborhood-thug power) violates these universal laws? If they are not universal but are products of Western cultural then how do other cultures stack up in terms of happiness, longevity, productivity, and wealth?

Interesting stuff.—Joe]

Assumptions

Posted on by

I’ve been embarrassed frequently enough by making assumptions that I’m sometimes chastised for asking questions. It’s uncomfortable to be glared at as someone says, “I’m not even going to answer that question” but I prefer that to giving shooting advice to Lisa Munson (I knew the name but didn’t know what she looked like) just prior to her shooting an USPSA stage. She just smiled and thanked me. But when she shot it with a better score than I in about half the time I wanted to leave the range in embarrassment.

I’m reminded of this by the incident which occurred here. To the best of my knowledge the commenter is a nice guy and was trying to be helpful. But it was a lot like me giving shooting advice to Ms. Munson. We both made erroneous assumptions. We both assumed the woman was less of an expert than we are because we are men and it involved firearms. As we both learned this assumption can be drastically wrong.

Ms. Munson delivered her response to me in a way that was extremely gracious and I really appreciate that.

There were two lessons there. One is to not make assumptions. The other lesson is you can deliver a response graciously such that the person on the receiving end will be thankful (perhaps in private prays to their god(s)) rather than be resentful for being publically humiliated. Her two lessons are something that I will never forget and I hope others can learn from as well.

As an additional aid to help you remember this I would like to point out you can’t spell ‘assumption’ without an ‘ass’ and ‘u’.

Quote of the day—Tasso Rampante

Posted on by

Shockingly high rates of gun ownership and shockingly low rates of summary executions by totalitarian regimes.

Tasso Rampante
May 29, 2012
Comment to How do you say “Come and take them” in Mandarin?
[This was in regard to the Chinese complaining that the U.S. has “rampant gun ownership”.

As Robb said, “This is a feature, my oriental friends, not a bug.” But from the point of view of the Chinese government it would be a severe “bug” if summary executions (with the family being charged for the cartridge used) became more “challenging”. After all, they have an obligation to “protect the people” by killing those that disrupt the collective and interrupt the narrative. But they are making progress: “The switch from gunshots to injections is a sign that China ‘promotes human rights now.'”

To be fair it’s not just the Chinese government. There are people in our country who advocate the harming of dissidents as well.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Richard Schiffman

Posted on by

The recent killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in a gated community in Florida has reignited the controversy over gun violence in America.

Whether the shooting was an act of self-defense, as Zimmerman’s lawyer claims, or murder plain and simple has been left to a jury to decide. But clearly it never would have happened if the possession of handguns were illegal, or severely restricted, as it is in Europe.

Richard Schiffman
Guns Now Kill More People Than Cars in 10 States
May 29, 2012
[There are two important things to note here.

  1. Schiffman has no respect for the Bill of Rights. He wants handguns, specifically protected the the Supreme Court in the Heller case, banned or severely restricted.
  2. He does not recognize self-defense as legitimate. In his world view the world would be a better place if Zimmerman had continued to get his head bashed in and possibly killed rather than use a gun to defend himself.

The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from this is that Schiffman should leave the U.S. and live some place where guns are banned and thugs bash in heads without fear of people defending themselves. If he has such severe problems with the Bill of Rights he does not belong here.—Joe]

Overheard

Posted on by

I hear the most interesting things sometimes. This was a woman…

I love the way my body smells. I sometimes get horny from smelling myself.

Posted in Sex

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

If having your cell phone or other electronic device turned on could jeopardize the safety of an airplane then why allow electronic devices on the plane at all? Why couldn’t a group of suicide terrorists carry high powered electronic devices on airplanes and turn them on during critical portions of the flight and bring them down at will? Or even aim a directional beam at planes from the ground and bring them down?


One has to conclude that the prohibition against having your cell phone turned on is just more security theater.


Update: Some awesome stuff in the comments. I think I need to back down some on my claims above…

Quote of the day—Mikee

Posted on by

Prosecutors and police have an authority, not a right, to hold evidence. Citizens have rights. State agents have “authority” or delegated powers, based on the decisions of the citizenry. When the police and prosecutors overstep their authority, they are infringing on rights, not exercising them.

Mikee
May 26, 2012
Comment to Three years
[Mikee is absolutely correct. But that is not anywhere close to the way our opponents talk about our political system. They talk in terms of terms of people being allowed to have rights.

But what I find most interesting at the highest level at least some of them know the truth. From the Brady Center Legal Action Newsletter Spring 2012 (emphasis added):

The people of Colorado should have the right to protect their communities from the dangers of loaded guns on their streets and parks. The gun lobby wants to force guns onto the streets of Denver, and they don’t care how many lives it costs. Their position is so extreme that Colorado’s Attorney General, who has an A- rating from the NRA, is arguing side-by-side in court with us against the NRA and other members of the gun lobby.”

Jonathan Lowy, the Director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project who argued the case in court, stated, “States and cities have the authority to keep guns off the streets.”

When talking to the public they speak of the collective people and governments having rights. When speaking to the courts where words have more carefully defined meanings and the opposition is going to point out their errors they correctly speak of government having authority.

They are not merely ignorant or careless with the truth. This is concrete evidence they are deliberately deceptive.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan E. Lowy

Posted on by

The work of the Legal Action Project — like all Brady’s work to prevent gun violence — is really a battle over two visions of America.

In our vision, a 17-year-old boy can buy Skittles and a soft drink at the local 7-11 and walk back home safely to watch a basketball game with his father. But in the NRA’s vision, the boy is stopped by a man on the street with a violent past and a loaded hidden handgun.

In the NRA’s vision, George Zimmerman kills Trayvon Martin.

Jonathan E. Lowy
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Legal Action Project Director
Spring 2012
Legal Action Newsletter Spring 2012 (if this link goes dead let me know because I saved a copy).
[Lowy is absolutely correct about there being two visions of America.

The Brady Center and Brady Campaign appear to have made the Martin/Zimmerman case the centerpiece of their legal and political campaigns. This is could be a goldmine for us. The media tried to help the left by falsifying data and the left, including the Brady’s, ran with the lie. The lie was exposed and as more and more evidence brought out it looks as if Zimmerman will come out as justified in using deadly force to defend himself.

By making the Martin/Zimmerman case their showcase of the evil NRA it is likely to be savagely shot down as part of the lie. They, to a certain extent, participated in the lie by using the photo of Martin as a 12 year-old rather than as a 17 year-old. Their only real out at this point in time is to back down and quietly drop the Martin/Zimmerman meme but I don’t think they strength of character to do that. They are too psychologically weak to admit their mistake and change direction.

We should use this to our advantage at every opportunity. The Brady vision of America is not, and should not be, supported by the people of our country. Help them wither up and blow away into the dustbin of history.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Knox

Posted on by

The old adage of never looking a gift horse in the mouth does not apply in civic matters – just ask the Trojans.

Jeff Knox
May 24, 2012
Scandal! Cities pay anti-gun lobbyists
[This is in regards to the Illegal Mayors Against Guns and the Joyce Foundation partially funding city “staff positions for professional lobbyists whose primary function is to drum up support for ant-gun legislation, ordinances and regulations.”

As Jeff points out in his article if this were the NRA getting pro-gun lobbyists on city staff the media and liberals would explode in fury. Bring this point up as needed to eliminate these questionable if not illegal use of tax money.

There are other ways to get the point across as well. What if they were lobbyists for other controversial political positions such as:

  • Pro-Life?
  • Pro-Choice?
  • The KKK?
  • Creationism?

Government is rightly limited to specific enumerated powers. For them to use taxpayer money to advocate the infringement of specific enumerated rights goes way beyond any power they should ever be allowed to have.—Joe]

Life’s little tradeoffs

Posted on by

30 Cal Gal sent me an email this morning with a picture of the Western Shooting Journal cover for June (supposedly on newsstands now):


WSJCover


The article was written by Shelley (thank you Shelley!).


I showed it to Ry and his response was, “I’m glad I got it in one shot!”


Yeah. Had it taken four or five shots (it’s happened to me) the teaser line would have been a little embarrassing. Of course at near contact distance with the flame front misses are less likely and having your hair burned could be embarrassing too. Life is full of tradeoffs.

Your bias is showing

Posted on by

Google news shows Fidel Castro’s niece endorsed President Obama (last Google entry shown on this page):

 CastroEndorsesObama

Yet when you go to that page the name “Obama” and that quote is not to be found.

Other sources include the quote, “I would vote for President Obama. I think he’s sincere and speaks from the heart.”

Apparently the AP removed that portion of the story. Perhaps because it is because it really shouldn’t be considered news. Communists endorsing communists is even less newsworthy than “dog bits man”.

Quote of the day—Ry Jones

Posted on by

I feel so small.


Ry Jones
May 24, 2012
[This was after viewing some of these pictures of fireballs (click for very high resolution versions):


rip_02_sml wall_o_fire_workers_sml pyro_b17_sml


Ry gets and deserves a lot of praise for his fireballs at Boomershoot (2007, 2011, 2012). But apparently he is experiencing some performance anxiety.


Today is his birthday so I’m going to take him out to lunch and try to cheer him up as we plan our tests (scheduled for June 9, 2012) for Boomershoot Fireball 2013.—Joe]