Making choices

Posted on by

For decades Libertarians and Republicans have been saying the economic and social policies of the left were destined to be catastrophic. Eventually all looters stop. There are only three options; 1) They stop because they realize theft is wrong, 2) They are stopped by force, or 3) They run out of places to loot.

Greece is the harbinger of our future and has the opportunity to select their option. Yet even now many do not see impending doom crashing in on them:

Riding a wave of anger to rise from obscurity to contender for power, leftist SYRIZA leader Alexis Tsipras, 37, promises to reject the punishing terms of the 130 billion euro ($163.75 billion) bailout if he wins the nail-biter vote on Sunday.

On the right, establishment heir and New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras, 61, says that would send Greece crashing out of the single currency and condemn it to even greater economic calamity.

With the election set to go down to the wire, European leaders weighed in on Saturday, urging Greeks to vote with their heads.

The bailout will not be renegotiated, warned German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country’s wealth is vital to shoring up its weaker partners in the bloc.

…

Some global businesses and banks are already in retreat: Europe’s biggest retailer, Carrefour, said on Friday it was selling up in Greece, a day after French bank Credit Agricole moved to take direct control of its Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian units from its Greek bank Emporiki.

On Saturday, Germany’s Biotest appeared to become the first drugmaker to say it was exiting the Greek market in July after its customers there failed to pay outstanding bills of 7 million euros. Others have threatened to do likewise, as the Greek health sector struggles with huge spending cuts.

Spain and Italy will probably be next in line to make a choice.

When it comes time for the American left to select an option which do you think it will be? And will those that oppose them be ready if the left choses options 2) or 3)?

Mass vehicular assault

Posted on by

From Lima Ohio:

Around 30 people were hurt, some seriously, when a woman drove her car into a street party in Lima, Ohio, Friday night.

“It was unreal. There were bodies, and shoes and jewelry,” The Lima News reported Amee Truesdale as saying. “They took many, many people to the hospital, and two or three of them looked seriously hurt … I saw men pick up that car and move out a gentleman that was pinned underneath.”

The driver, who reportedly had a dog with her, was parked five feet from the town’s main square when she accelerated rapidly, a police spokesman told NBC News.

Following this violent act will the Violence Policy Center follow up with media releases about the driver of the car having a drivers license despite a history of mental illness? Will the Brady Campaign be asking how the driver gained possession of the car? Will the CSGV demand that only the police and government officials be allowed to posses assault vehicles?

I can tell you the answers right now. No, no, and no. Those organizations are composed of people who have mental defects and cannot understand that both cars and guns are inanimate objects which have no volition of their own. They still adhere to the ancient belief that objects not people should be punished.

And this is why those organizations should be, and are being, left in the dustbin of history.

A step in the right direction

Posted on by

Via Politico I found out Rand Paul has introduced legislation which from a principled viewpoint I find pathetic. Only if I put my Wookie suit in a hidden vault and delete thousands of blog posts could I praise his first piece of proposed legislation. It is “a ‘Bill of Rights’ for air travelers” (S. 3302). “Guaranteeing a traveler’s right to request a pat-down using only the back of the hand” is to be considered a “right’? Really?


We don’t need a new law like this, we just need to enforce those already on the books. I’m of the opinion the 4th Amendment is the guaranteed right. All who voted for or have been involved in the implementation of TSA should be prosecuted under 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242. Impose fines for every violation and you would see second thought given to a lot of other government infringements of our rights as well as A Security Theater going down in flames.


The other Bill, S. 3303, “ends the TSA screening program and requires screening of passengers at airports to be conducted by private screeners only”. While elimination of the TSA would earn my praise the requirement that private business violate our 4th Amendment rights nearly nullifies the benefit.


But, as I said, that is from a principled viewpoint. Principles are a serious obstacle in politics. If you want to get anything done you had best leave your principles at the door and just keep a short cheat sheet up your coat sleeve when you enter the legislative arena. If either of these bills could be passed it would be a step in the right direction. Incrementalism is sometimes all that is politically feasible and that we have legislators looking for a path in the proper direction is something to be pleased with.

Quote of the day—Jesse Ventura

Posted on by

People in this country need to understand when you go to any airport in the United States, you are not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They can do anything they want to you and there is no where you can go to seek redress.

Jesse Ventura
June 13, 2012
Jesse Ventura No Longer Flies, Thanks To Transportation Security Administration
[Well… strictly speaking there are some options. They just aren’t legal.

What really needs to be done is to abolish the Security Theater known as TSA.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert VerBruggen

Posted on by

By the time Gross gets to arguing against a new bill that would force states to recognize each other’s concealed-carry permits — an issue on which I’m sympathetic to his position — it’s awfully difficult to take him seriously. Even putting aside that he calls the bill the “George Zimmerman Armed Vigilante Act.”

Remember, this isn’t some random clown blogging for the Huffington Post; it’s the president of a leading gun-control group. If these are the best arguments the anti-gun movement can put forth, our Second Amendment rights are safe indeed.

Robert VerBruggen
June 13, 2012
‘The NRA’s Dark Vision’?
[Yes, these are the best arguments they can put forth and they are indeed pathetic. But politics is rarely about good arguments about the merits of the legislation. Yes, good arguments about the merits of the proposed law contribute but as much as anything it is arguments about acquiring and maintaining political power that win the legislative votes.

Hence our rights and freedom are never truly safe. Eternal vigilance and frequent demonstrations of our political muscle are required.—Joe]

Vigorous assertions

Posted on by

This is what happens when you get too far down the slippery slope:

“No one should have the right to own a handgun except the police,” said Susan Martin, speaking at a news conference on the anniversary of her son’s death.

“Handguns are easy to hide and are used, with few exceptions, for one purpose only: to wound or kill someone,” she said.

Martin and his friend Dylan Ellis, 26, were shot dead in a parked SUV in Toronto’s entertainment district on June 13, 2008. The killing has so far remained unsolved.

A deadly shooting rampage at Toronto’s Eaton Centre this month once again cast a spotlight on gun violence in the city, and several officials joined in on Wednesday’s call for a crackdown on firearms.

Coun. Adam Vaughan said plans to improve public safety — including a proposal to outlaw the sale, storage and use of munitions in Toronto — were under discussion before the attack that killed two people and injured five others.

“I wish we didn’t need a recent example to convince anybody that action is needed,” he said.

“There is no rational reason to have a bullet in a crowded city, a friendly neighbourhood or a shopping mall,” he said.

They do not offer evidence of their assertions. At a certain point in the debate they “don’t need any stinking evidence”. They can just vigorously assert something is true and it will be accepted and they don’t even need to respond to the rare challenge to their claims.

A friend takes up blogging

Posted on by

A few weeks ago a friend told me of a book she was writing and I loaned her a somewhat obscure book from my collection (The Gilmartin Report) that was relevant to research she was doing for her book. When she returned the book she told me she had also started a blog. It’s called Miss Baby Blue Eyes (NSFW).

Yes. I have some interesting friends.

Quote of the day—Timothy A Campbell

Posted on by

Just make gun ownership punishable by death and we won’t need any more prisons or court systems. We will all be free.

Timothy A Campbell
June 12, 2012
On Twitter via a Linoge retweet.
[Not even a court system to judge those accused of gun ownership?

Why are anti-gun people so violent?

Campbell uses that word “free”. I don’t think it means what he thinks it means.—Joe]

Blade-Tech FYI

Posted on by

For probably nearly 10 years I’ve been wearing a Blade-Tech Combo Magazine Pouch with the Tek-Lok belt attachment. Even if I’m not carrying a spare magazine for my STI Eagle I’m carrying my Sure-Fire flashlight. I always have it with me. On airplanes, in secure government installations, everywhere I’m wearing clothes I have it with me.

A few years ago I tipped over the ATV at Boomershoot and cracked the mag pouch (and did some pretty serious damage to my leg too). The crack gradually got worse and now it no longer reliably retains the magazine. I need a new one.

I went to the Blade-Tech website and tried to order one but the only STI option was for the STI LS (a single stack 1911 chambered in 9×19). I called Blade-Tech to find out if I could get one to accommodate a spare magazine for my double stack STI. The answer was a very friendly, “Yes! We can do that.” The lead time is about six weeks but I now have a replacement on order.

The bottom line is that just because you don’t see something on their website it doesn’t mean they can’t or won’t make one for you.

Quote of the day—John Ransom

Posted on by

While we were all shocked and angered at the revelation of Nixon’s abuses, today the same abuses are not only ignored but tolerated- even encouraged- by the Left.

I never thought I would see a time when the U.S. government would deliberately sell guns to Mexican drug cartels just to advance a petty policy argument about gun control, while the press stood by with not a word or reproach. Or allow the Black Panthers to practice the worst type of racism abetted by the highest law enforcement officer in the land, while the press applauded.

John Ransom
June 11, 2012
Watergate at 40: Obama is the Democrats’ Nixon
[Politics in this country (probably everywhere) is pretty nasty. Even in the late 1700’s when we just formed our current form of government there was incredible division between parties. And political divisiveness goes further than just tolerance for hostile rhetoric. There is evidence that ordinary people, essentially, become sociopaths when dealing with their political opponents:

Empathy is the root of morality and cooperation. People without empathy are called sociopaths, and they are by far the most dangerous people on the planet. Every genocide features sociopaths; every mass atrocity and every continued abuse requires them. So, when a study shows empathy being almost entirely crushed, it should be jarring. To put it clearly and simply, this study showed something very scary, which is this:

When people are under the influence of politics, they turn into sociopaths.

We ask ourselves, “Why are liberals so violent?” And we ask “Why would the government sell/give guns to the drug cartels?” At least part of the answer is because they are in a political contest with non-liberals.

This does not justify the behavior. What it means is that we must guard against it. Do not underestimate the capacity of your political enemy, or your political ally, to behave in monstrous ways.

H/T to Chris M. for the heads up email on politics turning people into sociopaths.—Joe]

Jobs Jobs Jobs (and Governor Butch Otter)

Posted on by

Just in case you’re confused on the subject (and I know that millions of people are); the purpose of a business is not to “provide jobs”.  Not ever.  Don’t even think about it.  Stop talking about it.


The Republican Governor of the State of South Idaho is one of those who are deeply confused.  He instated his “Hire One” program to nudge us into hiring people.  We’re supposed to go to some government web site and see if we “qualify”.  (Ooh!  Do I “Qualify?  Maybe I’m “special”)  Maybe that’s the “jobs program” right there— more state workers to manage the web sites and the “jobs” program implementation, whether or not anyone applies.  To hell with that, Governor Otter.  My business is not a stupid Butch Otter, State Government “jobs” program.


If we really need more help, we (without holding your hand and without being threatened) will hire someone.  That is, unless taxes, requirements, energy prices inflated due to restrictions, red tape and more restrictions get in the way, and unless you stick your nose where it doesn’t belong and use the coercive power of government to favor some businesses or industries at the expense of others– then we’d be expected to come crawling to you for some of that favoritism that only communists and mobsters have the power to dole out to their supporters.  I’ll die first.  I want nothing to do with you.  I have work to do.  You and your fellow communists at all levels are in the way.  Just get the hell out of the way.  Understand?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  You have “interests” to pander to.  You’re a coward at best, and we have no use for cowards.


You’d rather have a government “jobs program” so you can take credit for that which I accomplish in spite of your interference and confiscation.  Have you ever considered a “liberty program” instead of a “jobs program”?  No; I’m sure you haven’t.  Too novel.  It takes too much imagination for some people.  Communist scum don’t think that way, see.  They think instead of how they can meddle, how they can take credit for other people’s work, and live as parasites off of other people’s honest work.


The purpose of business, Little Grasshopper, is to create goods and services, sell them at competitive prices, and thereby make a profit.  See– jobs don’t even figure into it, except that in order to provide our goods and services at competitive prices, we NEED to hire as few people as possible to get it done right.  Otherwise our expenses are too high and we fail.  Get it?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  If you got it, you wouldn’t be talking about “Jobs” AT ALL.  Jobs are what happen naturally when you leave people alone, you ignorant, pathetic, self-serving heap of RINO shit.  Only communists talk about “jobs” in the context of government action.


The rest of us talk about liberty, because we want you off our backs so we can produce, sell, buy, exercise ownership of what we make, and live in peace.  Get it?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  Your actions and your language betray you, Fool.  You don’t belong here— not in the Republican Party and not in America.


We’ll make it real simple;  People either a) work, because they’re free, or they b) don’t work because they’re not free (government’s paying them not to work or the government’s in the way).  “Government jobs program” is therefore something of a contradiction in terms, and the mere fact that we have a Department of Labor is an affront to America.

Quote of the day—Harry Cheadle

Posted on by

The simple solution is to just not walk around with a gun like a goddamn lunatic and if you get into a fight, maybe just take the chance that you might get your ass beat.

Harry Cheadle
June 8, 2012
Don’t Take Your Guns to Town, Morons
[Extending his advice to the obvious conclusion, if you are being raped you should just lay back and enjoy it.

But I prefer John Fogh’s advice to say, “Please don’t rape me.” Using, of course, the universal language of multiple jacketed hollowpoints.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David E. Petzal

Posted on by

In order to keep his rifle, the owner of the M-1 took it to a gunsmith who milled off the bayonet lug and then sent a letter, along with a copy of his FFL, to the License Division, Rifle & Shotgun Section, stating that the work had been done. Amputating the bayonet lug has, of course, destroyed any value the rifle had as a collector’s piece, and the owner will not, of course, be compensated.

And if you listened very carefully, you could hear “reasonable” and “sense” shrieking as they thrashed in their death struggles.

David E. Petzal
June 8, 2012
NY Gun Control: The Mad Hatter Would Understand
[I have nothing to add but my tears of anger and frustration.—Joe]

Testing for Boomershoot 2013

Posted on by

Saturday Barron, Ry and I did some testing for Boomershoot 2013.

While there is no particular need to hide the details I’m busy with getting the Boomershoot entry software ready to accept entries and will let Barron and Ry explain what we were trying to accomplish.

But for those of you who want to try and guess here is some of the video we took (edited by Barron):

Here are the critical still images of the tests I was most interested in:

IMG_0056Cropped
Before.

IMG_0057Corrected
After.

IMG_0069Cropped
Before.

IMG_0070Corrected
After.

IMG_0099Cropped
Before.

IMG_0100Corrected
After.

IMG_0066CorrectedIMG_0067Corrected
After.

Quote of the day—Mark Alger

Posted on by

The Left’s ideas are un-falsifiable. Their ignorance is invincible. This is why the notion is rapidly catching on that there is no compromising with them. They must be defeated and kept away from the levers of power. Whole swathes of society, which were abandoned to their depredations — education, journalism, the arts — must be reclaimed from them or given up altogether. Some may be converted through repeated teaching and their own experience, but — sadly — not many. It will not be a quick process. There will be many setbacks. But it must be done or the whole of civilization will be taken down by their idiocy.

Mark Alger
June 8, 2012
Comment to Seriously scary stuff.
[I really need to finish reading The Handbook of 5GW. As Ry told me, “This is where we need to be.”

Warfare, at the most fundamental level, does not mean destruction of life or property although that is a means to the ultimate goal of warfare. Warfare is about getting people to change their behavior. Sometimes that is about getting people to give up their natural resources or it might be about getting people to change their religious beliefs. Even if the purpose of the war was to extinguish an entire race or society the goal, ultimately, was about changing behavior (stop them from breathing).

Seen through this light we liberate ourselves because we release we are at war and that it is acceptable for us to go to war. The traditional tools of war including slings, arrows, chemicals, and bullets do not necessarily have to be used directly. The mere presence of our training and firearms will probably be sufficient prevent the war we are in from “going hot”,  We have other weapons at our disposal which must be deployed. We must get those in power and those that demand power over us to stop their behavior. We have votes, the courts, propaganda, education, and probably a thousand other things at our disposal. But we must win this war. Our country, no, all human society, is being laid to waste by those that believe they know better than the individual how the individual should spend the fruits of their labor. And this behavior must be stopped.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ry Jones

Posted on by

That’s actually pretty devious. I like that.

Ry Jones
June 9, 2012
[Barron, Ry, and I were at the Boomershoot site doing some tests. Most of the tests were failures but one for a potential new target type was successful. It was the new target which prompted Ry’s comment.

For now, I’ll just say that the new target is 48” inches long, holds more Boomerite than any target we have deployed in recent years, and leave it at that.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rym Ghazal

Posted on by

I remember the time I was in Iraq, and the family I was staying with insisted that I carry some form of weapon as “defence” and protection. Even their grandmother carried a small hand gun in her purse whenever she went out.

I vehemently refused. I hate the feel and the smell, indeed everything, about objects that kill and cause harm.

Rym Ghazal 
June 7, 2012
No gun control plus idle youth equals recipe for trouble
[I wonder if she has the same hatred for guns used by the police. And does the same hatred extend to knives, clubs, rocks, feet, fists, hands, teeth, cars, scissors, rope, electricity, tobacco, alcohol, water, dogs, fire, snakes, spiders, bacteria, and viruses?

She must spend most of her time hating. Perhaps she should see a counselor about that. Such extreme hoplophobia can’t be good for one’s long term mental or physical health.—Joe]

Seriously scary stuff

Posted on by

While Bloomberg’s retarded proposal to limit the size of soft drink containers is getting a lot of attention I don’t think most people really understand how serious the problem is. I’ve had conversations with a few people who were admitted Marxist and many others who merely claimed they were Liberals or Progressives. One of the things they all had in common was their extremely simple view of the world while simultaneously proclaimed they were smarter than others and that gave them the authority to force others to live as they demanded. Any mention of individual freedom was immediately shot down because “People don’t do what is best for themselves or society.”


One of the admitted Marxists proclaimed, “I’m a firm believer in the good of society over the good of the individual.” In his world view the individual just doesn’t matter. Government must do what is best for the good of society and if the individual sometimes doesn’t get what they want or gets hurt that is just too bad. Pointing out I could find nothing different in that justification versus that used by those who murdered innocent civilians in 10s of millions in the last century yielded comments to the effect of “They made some horrible mistakes. We just need the right people in charge.” Of course he believed he was one of the right people.


Just as Bloomberg apparently cannot think one step ahead to how easily his proposed restriction on “high capacity” soft drink containers would be defeated these people cannot envision what follows next from their every proposed attempt at restricting individual liberty and the free market. In one of the recent books of Thomas Sowell that I listened to he related the story of when he was a economics student and was enamored with some idea that would “force people to do the right thing”. He proudly presented it to his instructor who asked, “And then what happens?” Sowell initially was perplexed. Why of course, the desired outcome would happen. There was a law or regulation that required people to do the right thing. The instructor pushed him to think it through from an economics point of view. And Sewell thought it through and gave the answer that only slightly diminished his enthusiasm for the idea. The instructor again pushed, “And then what happens?” Again Sowell answered and his enthusiasm damped just a bit more. As the instructor pushed him again and again Sowell walked through the rippling effects of the simple one law and it was not long before he realized that not only was the effect of the law far less simple than what he thought but it would not result in his desired outcome. Everyone touched by the “one simple law” would pay a price with no one, except perhaps the bureaucrats and the politicians, receiving a net benefit.


The typical gun controller cannot conceive of why registration of firearms would not make society safer. Unintended consequences escape their grasp all the while they proclaim themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to us. It’s all just “common sense” to them. They vehemently insist there are, literally, easy answers to some difficult problems that involve the constitution, criminology, psychology, and practicality of implementation. I sometimes believe those that insist that if someone had not had a concealed carry permit they wouldn’t have committed multiple murders must be suffering from some kind of insanity. If one is willing to break the law against murder why would they obey the law against carrying a concealed firearm or even ownership of a firearm? Why is it so incredibly difficult for them to think even one step ahead?


I struggle with how to get what I think are extremely simple concepts across to these people. Even everyday things Liberals/Progressives claim to be experts on they are profoundly ignorant and/or stupid on. One Liberal I know went on about how because something was “natural” it was “so much better for you”. I asked what the definition of “natural” was. Was this opposed to “super-natural”? This is about the only thing that even comes close in my mind. She said, “No. Natural is something that is not man-made.” “So”, I queried, “Does that mean the lemonade you are drinking is not natural? At the bare minimum a man or woman had to squeeze the juice from the lemon and mix it with water.” The response was, “If you ask that then you are just stupid.”


This liberal can’t even present a defendable definition of a word that she uses in probably 25% of her conversations with me and she calls me stupid? How do you get through to someone like that?


Sowell’s instructor had an advantage we don’t. He or she had a very bright student with a grasp of economic theory and the student was in a subordinate position. Liberals/Progressives will not tolerate being in a subordinate position. They believe they are superior to non-liberals and any challenge to that world view is met with an attack. And if the verbal attack isn’t sufficient to “win” their argument they are more than willing, as Bloomberg is demonstrating, to use force to get our compliance.


People with the intellectually power and problem domain knowledge of a 2nd grader are demanding they be put in charge of essentially everything with guns to back up their decisions. This is some seriously scary stuff.

Quote of the day—Bob Budz

Posted on by

Big Brother is now here – and look, he is retarded!

Bob Budz
Via Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, No.1 January 1, 1994
[Although it was said over 18 years ago I have to think it is more true today than it was then. At that time Mayor Bloomberg had not yet taken it upon himself to try and restrict the size of soda cups. Perhaps he is too stupid to realize that if he wants more than ‘X’ number of ounces he can hold a cup in each hand each holding ‘X -1’ ounces but very few others are so handicapped.—Joe]

Our Vice Moron at it Again

Posted on by

Imagine, in just a few years, solar shingles on your brand new custom house (all you high school graduates) that cost no more than regular shingles, that will power everything in your house, heating, AC the whole deal.  Imagine crops that don’t need soil (OK, maybe hydroponics) and no water (oops) and no fertilizer.  Magic crops.  “Literally just around the corner.”


And of course none of that can happen if the eeevil Republicans are in power.  Only more of ‘bama’s stash money can make the magic happen.  The private markets?  Meh.  All that’s done is fail continuously for 200+ years, apparently.  What’s been happening in the last few years– that’s the ticket, Baby.


Now if kids actually learned science, physics, biology or basic economics, they’d laugh that gibbering idiot off the podium.  This is where our Soviet-style education system comes in.  Of course now anyone can look up maximum and average available energy per unit area at their latitude at various times of the year, and the efficiency of the best PV panels, take into account the problem of tracking, or in the case of your magic roof shingles the lack of tracking, and so on.  And naturally, to get the most out of your magic solar roof shingles you’ll have to cut down the trees that shade your house, increasing the AC load.  Or maybe not, being as they’re magic and all.


He had a teleprompter, so I have to assume that he didn’t make that up as he went along.  There had to have been some planning behind it.


The Moron in Chief, to make himself look better by comparison, had pick the stupidest fool he could find I guess, and then put him out there to show the contrast, such as it is.