This (and this) is what winning looks like:
Lots of smiles with lots of guns with an attitude that will appeal to everyone except the anti-gun people. What can the anti-gun people do in response except engage in heavy drinking?
More Zimmerman evidence
From my viewpoint it appears Zimmerman’s case is getting stronger with every new bit of evidence released:
Prosecutors released more evidence in the George Zimmerman case Tuesday afternoon including an unredacted police report and the results of a voice stress test given the day after he shot Trayvon Martin.
The supplemental discovery was released at 1 p.m. and includes video and audio recordings of police interviews with Zimmerman, a 29-page Sanford Police report without statements redacted and an exemption list that notes redactions to the evidence.
…
The video released by prosecutors shows the same reenactment with additional footage of detectives asking Zimmerman about his injuries.
In the short clip, Zimmerman points out cuts and bruises on his head but says he wasn’t injured elsewhere.
“He was just focused on my head,” Zimmerman says.
In the stress test, Zimmerman answered “No” when asked “Did you confront the guy you shot?” He answered “yes” when asked “Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?”
The examiner concluded Zimmerman was telling the truth.
The way I read the “tea leaves” is that the prosecution and perhaps even the media is slowly preparing the public for an acquittal or perhaps even dropping the charges.
Random thought of the day
Over the weekend someone told me, “Drop the logic; embrace the real.” The short version of my response was, “I have no idea what this means.”
Yesterday as I was walking to the bus stop I was listening to The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. Yet, I was still trying to get my mind around the implications of “Drop the logic; embrace the real” without concluding such a statement was an invitation to delusionville.
The author was talking (literally, he was reading his own book) about simulations of “universes” and how we might detect if we are in a simulated universe such as those explored in Hollywood with movies like “The Matrix“. Compared to some of the first alternate computer games I was aware of such as the text based game Zork computer games do an amazing job of creating simulated universes. Combined with the predictions of Ray Kurzweil in The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology we can imagine we are getting close (perhaps less than 40 years) from creating virtual universes which will be extremely difficult to distinguish from reality.
One of the suggestions the author made was that if we know of existence of millions or billions of virtual universes, such as those instantiated by all the people playing video games, and we question the reality of the universe we live in then the following logical conclusion might be entirely valid. Since we know that there are X million virtual universes in existence and only one universe that we have questions about the most likely answer is that the universe in question is also a virtual universe.
I’m pretty sure my friend hadn’t encouraged me to “Drop the logic” with anything this profound in mind but I decided they weren’t necessarily a strong candidate for occupying a padded cell either.
Quote of the day—Brennan Bailey
How heartless do you have to be to laugh about the tragedy of this country’s deepening epidemic of spoon crime?
Brennan Bailey
June 25, 2012
From an email thread at work. This was in response to someone who said, “ROF, LMAO” in response to this picture (the origin may have been this comment): 
[Yes. We gun owners are heartless and have no sympathy for those made fat by the spoon manufactures and their evil lobbyists who block commonsense spoon control.—Joe]
This is for Bill Whittle
And also for everyone else. I don’t get paid to do this. The time spent is all cost, so I don’t spend much time editing. I wanted to take this piece, or rant, of mine and really polish it, using historical links and references, but too bad– here it is. It’s verbatim off of a members only section on gunrightsmedia.org, from a thread on medical pot and guns. I bring Bill Whittle’s name into this post because he has, as I’ve been describing on numerous blogs, fully embraced, with relish, the left’s “guns cause harm” meme. All the best intentions will be for naught unless we think clearly, following the truth where ever it leads. Well here it is;
There is a direct and inseparable link between Prohibition and gun restriction. Note Operation Fast and Furious.
The authoritarians learned a great lesson from alcohol prohibition. They learned that huge amounts of power and money were transferred to authoritarians, both inside of government and outside of government (tyrants and gangsters) as a direct result of prohibition.
The first time; Americans understood that it would require a constitutional amendment, because the government is not authorized by the constitution to tell us what we may or may not consume. When Prohibition was modified (it was never ended) with another amendment to the constitution, the feds that were employed to smash down doors and brutalize people over alcohol were given another job, the very next month. Prohibition was modified in December of 1933 and the NFA went into effect in January of 1934. The former Prohibition enforcers, who were accustomed to stealing alcohol for their own use and profit could now smash down doors and brutalize people to enforce the brand new National Firearms Act,. Stealing guns and using them for their own use and profit, and making deals with gangs as before.
Just as Prohibition created a newly vitalized and powerful organized crime culture, which of course availed itself of the best weapons, so too did it give FDR an excuse to circumvent the second amendment. He pushed for and got the NFA as a backdoor to gun restriction, making the case that all this gun violence is just too much—something must be done. “Why; it’s not a ban– it’s a tax!” The shiny new ATF was originally a part of Treasury. See?
Create a situation of violence and gangsterism (Prohibition) then swoop in and “fix” it with more even authoritarianism. Works like a charm, every time it’s tried.
The authoritarians have since come up with ways to fool us into accepting federal drug laws, this time without a constitutional amendment. So now we’re right back to the 1920s, but the constitution took a hit in the process. Drug money instead of alcohol money, drug gangs paying off law enforcement instead of Al Capone buying cops– drug enforcement excuses for more power and money instead of alcohol as an excuse for more money and power. The equation is exactly the same, only this time it’s far worse. They’ve beat down former constitutional limits, this time it’s far longer lived, it’s still growing, and it’s growing right along with outrageous actions of feds working directly with Mexican drug gangs (Fast & Furious). Meet your new masters– the big, happy family of gangsters, corrupt government officials, corrupt police, corrupt foreign governments controlled by gangs, some of the worst enemies of America, the BATFE which was recently made part of the Justice Department (not even any more pretense of being a tax authority) and whole new agencies with guns, lots of funding, and protection from the President when they get caught with their pants down, all circle-jerking together, and weakening America at every stage.
Meanwhile; the Republicans are still busy, frantically trying to decide on what they should pretend to believe during the next election. You Suckers!
Now was that so hard? I don’t believe I blamed guns for anything, or said that guns were “responsible”, I acknowledged the existence of the constitution, acknowledged the fact that corruption exists at all levels (though it’s unpopular to even think that cops can be corrupt) I blamed gangsters for their gangster crime, I didn’t use the term “assault weapon” which was fabricated by the anti-gun media and the Clinton administration, I didn’t confuse an assault rifle with a semi auto carbine, and I laid out a brief history of drugs and guns, showing that they have been inseparable since the 1930s, when FDR linked them and made up the BATF as a faux “tax” authority. This is all one, continuing story, see, on-going for generations– we’re just caught up in it. It’s louder now, our government is every bit as corrupt as during the 1920s and ’30s if not more so, and it’s bigger and more powerful, but as of this morning we’re still not connecting all the dots. Now I have to go pick up my kid.
ETA; Here’s the Whittle piece. Listen to the actual words.
Mid 19th Century Belt-Fed
Well almost– this uses a closed loop chain, but the concept is there.
Joe and I spoke of this concept many years ago, but I didn’t know until today that it had actually been done. My version, though, would have been gas operated, but that technology wasn’t tested until some time after the end of the percussion era. Gas operation and black powder wouldn’t go very well together because BP is so dirty, but it certainly can be done. Energies are quite a bit lower, but you can throw a projectile of several hundred grains well into the super sonic, from a rifle. The pistols of the same period could only just make, or slightly exceed, the speed of sound with heavy charges. I’ve gotten 1130ish fps with a 180 grain pill from an 8″ bbl on an 1858 Remington New Model Army revolver replica, which is on par, energy wise, with the 40 S&W. The huge 1847 Colt’s Dragoon (Walker) revolver could do somewhat better, but the story goes; it was prone to blow up. Metalurgy has come a long way since then.
Hat Tip; castboolits.gunloads.com (I learned a lot about casting there, and I still hang out on the muzzleloading section now and then)
Think of the children!
From Mike at work:
I brought my then youngest (who is now the middle) daughter to the range at 8-years old and she absolutely loved it. Safe gun handling was taught at least a week before we went. By the time we were at the range she knew what to do and had respect for the rifle. To this day she still asks me “when are we going to that range?” Check out her “straight and off the trigger” finger.
Here are pictures of Mike:
More pictures of Lily:
From looking at these pictures the thought occurs to me that if our opponents were smart enough they may actually have had a rational reason for banning rifles with “collapsible” (length adjustable) stocks. This makes it more difficult for the young to shoot. Even if they didn’t think it through it is a good argument against such restrictions. Hence our side could and should demand, “Think of the children!”
Quote of the day—cherokeeprogressive
Some people see phalluses and penises everywhere they look. It’s either penis envy or hatred of penises, I’ve yet to figure out which.
In the end, it’s a homophobic play to shame supporters of gun rights out of their beliefs. “Guns mean you’re gay” isn’t going to work, but some people will never figure that out. Never.
cherokeeprogressive
June 23, 2012
The Washington Monument is a phallic symbol. Skyscrapers are phallic symbols. Guns are NOT.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
There is from what is actually a pretty decent conversation going on in the Democratic Underground.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell
Undefined words have a special power in politics, particularly when they invoke some principle that engages people’s emotions. “Fair” is one of those undefined words which have attracted political support for policies ranging from Fair Trade laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the fact that the word is undefined is an intellectual handicap, it is a huge political advantage.People with very different views on substantive issues can be unified and mobilized behind a word that papers over their differing, and sometimes even mutually contradictory, ideas. Who, after all, is in favor of unfairness? Similarly with “social justice,” “equality,” and other undefined terms that can mean wholly different things to different individuals and groups— all of whom can be mobilized in support of policies that use such appealing words.
Thomas Sowell
Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition pages 1 and 2.
[The phrase “special power” brings to mind “super heroes” and “super villains”. I am of the opinion that while there is ample evidence of “super villains” “super heroes” only exist in the minds of small children, some Ron Paul fans, and Democrats.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Ayn Rand
To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.
Ayn Rand
“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It (The Ayn Rand Library)
Via Atlas Shrugged Movie
[Those that initiate force against you are not properly identified as human and force may be required. Only in extremely rare circumstances is persuasion a good option with these animals.
Government is force. Government is an extremely inefficient, and hence impractical, means of dealing with a set of rational people. It is only when your set of people are not rational and are approximating a herd of animals that government/force is appropriate. The case can be made that our government is creating, perhaps with malice aforethought, a class of people that are best dealt with as if they were an animal herd. This makes more and larger government seem like the appropriate solution to societal issues.
Perhaps growing up on a farm makes me more aware of this but the owner of the herd does not have the best interest of the herd in mind as they care for it. Yes, the herd gets food, water, shelter, and free health care as needed. But it also gets sheared, neutered, dehorned, selectively bred, and those which will be expensive or impossible to be made productive are killed.
I highly recommend Rand’s book. Rand makes the case that whether we think about it or not we each have a philosophy that guides our life. The only question is what type of philosophy. Will it be rational, conscious, and therefore practical; or contradictory, unidentified, and ultimately lethal? One can make the case that failure to teach philosophy at an early age is extremely harmful to both the individual and society.
The inconsistencies of those supporting the current administration are a case in point.—Joe]
What, indeed, my friend
A lot of people are thinking the same thing.
But let’s not be too coy about it. What if Al Capone actually condoned illegal activities in Chicago? Gosh; that would be shocking, wouldn’t it? Oh but that would mean…. No; it’s too much to contemplate.
And again, because it isn’t sinking in. At all;
Saying that the guns were “allowed” into Mexico is a bit like saying that the Reichstag building was “allowed” to burn. Why; they just stood by and let it happen. That’s it– there were all these petty arsonists all over the place, setting fires all the time, so all that happened was someone (we don’t know who) turned off the pumper truck.
No, you fools; Obama and Holder longed, they desired, they were frustrated, so they planned, they plotted, they bought the gasoline, they bought the matches, and they lit the fire. THEN they “allowed” it to burn, see? You still don’t really know what we’re dealing with? Do I need to slap someone upside the head? Can you read the ten-foot high letters on the wall in front of you? No? Well then take a few steps back and look again!
Check Your Premises
I thought we knew what we were fighting for, and against. I thought we were in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. I thought we understood what a right means and how it works in the world. Instead, it seems we have Chief Runs-with-a-Premise in charge of setting our narrative (and the fact that it seems we even have a narrative, meaning repetitions of the same fool nonsense over and over, is fairly disturbing in itself).
I thought we had dispelled the left’s highly imaginative premise that says a criminal can’t get a gun (and therefore can’t hurt anyone) unless our “lax” gun laws “allow” criminals to get guns, but it turns out that most of us are embracing that very premise with regard to Fast and Furious, and embracing it with relish.
Posit; You see a video of some jihadists sawing the head off of a captured American. Is your first reaction; “Well Goddamit, I want to know who made that saw!!! We must also find out who sold that saw and see to it that they are punished. Enough is enough! Enough of these lax saw laws! The National Saw Association is just as guilty of murder as anyone!” Really?
No, Young Grasshopper; check your premises. Please. It’s not about where the saw came from is it? Yet that’s the very case you’re making against Obama, Holder and the gang. You are ceding one of the primary, false premises to the Enemy. Stop it!
The Mexican drug gangs get their guns any damn where they want to, and they sure don’t need anyone in the U.S. for that. They will kill one way or another, and they will get their guns one way or another (and our drug Prohibition law will ensure that this never stops– Oh yes, our drug laws, gun laws and gang are inseparable, though you thought this three way, authoritarian-feeding racket was all about “helping people”, reducing crime, or some such blather).
Grasshopper; are you listening? Snap out of it, Man!
The point is; Our President along with his carefully hand-picked attorney general, the BATFE and the FBI, collaborating with Mexican gangsters, initiated a fraud against the American people. They initiated and perpetrated a fraud so as to garner support for more infringements on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.
If you want to point out the deaths from infringements on Americans’ gun rights, point to the multitudes who’ve been victimized in gun free zones, or anywhere or any time someone who would have had a gun for defense was prohibited by law from having a gun for defense, and died or was seriously injured or otherwise victimized as a result. THAT is your body count.
We need look no farther than here;
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm
Read those words very, very carefully. I now doubt that many of you have been paying a lot of real, serious attention. I believe that you’ve been caught up in the game, or with your blogs and radio show businesses, or something else I don’t know about.
Read. The. Words.
Forget about what you feel, or the business aspect, or the silly political game or whatever it is you’re playing, or what you want to see and hear verses what you actually see and hear. I’ve been seeing a trend among our ranks– a lot of assuming, inferring and…I don’t know what to call it except failing to understand the basics and failing to see and hear what’s being written and said, and I don’t like it. I don’t want to be everyone’s friend, or accepted in this or that group or whatever, so I can say it– you’re missing the point and it’s sad.
And you Republicans; Why is it so damned difficult to see a crime, CALL IT a crime, and prosecute it as a crime? Seriously. Wasn’t that supposed to be your job? I mean, isn’t the fact that we have downright criminals in high places in our government pretty much an overriding concern? Get busy, you slackers! Or do you have too much to hide, yourselves? Or are you just cowards? I think we’ve had just about enough of cowards in government, haven’t we?
ETA: It seems the DOJ took down the link, so here are the words, right in your lap;
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Quote of the day—Appellate Judge D. Michael Swiney
There is no economic sliding scale for the right to engage in constitutionally protected activities. The richest and poorest among us, as well as those individuals in-between, all have the same rights under the constitution. We hold that, as the ordinance could apply to virtually any pair or group of people engaged in a common activity, the ordinance is overly broad.
Appellate Judge D. Michael Swiney
Tennessee Court of Appeal
Street preacher wins battle against Maryville permit ordinance
June 19, 2012
[This was in regards to $50 permit being required by the city of Maryville Tennessee in order to exercise your First Amendment rights in public.
Via Say Uncle who asks, “So, we should get rid of the fees associated with getting a permit to carry a firearm?”—Joe]
5.56 versus .223
This is probably more information than you are really want to know—unless you are a gun geek. 5.56 vs .223 – What You Know May Be Wrong
The differences between .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO have been hashed out many times on the internet. Unfortunately, many of the “facts” that are often thrown around are simply what someone has heard from someone else, leading to a lot of misinformation being accepted as gospel.
…
My findings, and the opinions of many experts in the industry who deal with the topic every day, were not exactly what some might expect. In fact, many of them had already discovered what I am reporting, although my research was conducted independently.
I liked it.
Boomershoot 2013 entry schedule
Boomershoot 2013 will soon be open for entry. The schedule for entry is as follows. All times are Pacific Daylight time.
Staff: 6/22/2012 6:00:00 PM.
2012 participants: 6/24/2012 12:00:00 PM.
Everyone: 7/7/2012 12:00:00 PM.
The link for entry is http://entry.boomershoot.org/
If something drastically wrong shows up in the software these times could change but I probably can manually recover without starting over or disrupting the schedule above.
There are some changes I would like to bring to your attention.
1) Clinic and Field Fire Registration is done on the web site as opposed to directly with Gene Econ as has been the case in the past.
2) There is a new Boomershoot event on Friday evening: Private fireballs. For $500 you may shoot a fireball of your own at (up to) “entertainingly close” range. We will supply the rifle, ammo, and a shooting table. This is an experience suitable for even novice shooters. There will be a 7″ square target at relatively close range with a red-dot optic on a .223 caliber rifle. This will be a low recoil, easy sighting, highly exothermic experience.
If you have any questions or experience bugs using the updated entry software please let me know (joeh@boomershoot.org).
Boomershoot 2012 stats
I’m about to update the software on the Boomershoot entry web site and reset all the data so I captured the data from the statistics page before all the information is deleted.
| Total | Average per position taken | Average per total positions | |
| Positions Taken |
71 |
– |
0.93 |
| Participants |
152 |
2.14 |
2.00 |
| Shooters |
140 |
1.97 |
1.84 |
| Spotters |
12 |
0.17 |
0.16 |
| Friday High Intensity participants |
23 |
0.32 |
0.30 |
| Saturday High Intensity participants |
27 |
0.38 |
0.36 |
| Dinner participants |
112 |
1.58 |
1.47 |
| Media/Bloggers |
11 |
0.15 |
0.14 |
| ATF Approved |
15 |
0.21 |
0.20 |
| Staff |
26 |
0.37 |
0.34 |
The final numbers were probably a little different because of some last minute changes that didn’t get reflected on the web site but they are very close.
Quote of the day—Jeff Knox
To date, no gun-control scheme of any sort has ever been proven to deliver even minor reductions in crime, accidents or suicides in any nation. Even if restrictions were to reduce some aspect of crime, they could not be justified because they undermine both the individual right to self-defense and the collective right to political self-determination.
Jeff Knox
June 14, 2012
Chinese plot to strip Americans of firearms–Jeff Knox explains how communist ideals converge in both Asia and U.S.
[And yet those that would ban guns keep trying. One could claim they are ignorant or have evil intent. But I think both are somewhat rare. As near as I can tell the vast majority of anti-gun people are mentally defective.—Joe]
Without Comment
Just watch the two videos.
Quote of the day—Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, United States District Court Judge
[T]his court finds that the strict scrutiny balancing test would be the most appropriate test to apply in the instant case, since “the right to possess guns is a core enumerated constitutional right” and Section (b)(3)(iii) of the Chicago Firearm Ordinance completely restricts that right.
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
United States District Court Judge
Gowder v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2012), Page 24.
[Strict scrutiny!
The Brady Campaign, VPC, CSGV, and others are on the wrong side of history. They are no different that those advocating for ignoring or repealing the 13th Amendment years after it was passed.—Joe]
Extraordinary offer
Today Attorney General Eric Holder had a 20 minute meeting with Rep. Darrell Issa about the failure of Holder to comply with subpoenas for documents in Fast and Furious.
Apparently the meeting went something like this:
Issa: Turn them over or tomorrow we will hold you in contempt of congress.
Holder: I’ll let you peek at them if you will agree before you ever see them to stop the investigation after you have seen them.
Issa: I think we are done here. We’re voting on the contempt charge tomorrow.
Holder (direct quote to the media): “The ball’s in their court. We made what we thought was an extraordinary offer.”
Imagine for a moment that you or some gun shop owner had sold and/or given thousands (not the hundreds like the article erroneously says) of guns to criminal organizations who used them to murder hundreds of people include at least one if not two government agents. After finding out about it the prosecutor lets you stay out of jail and asks you a few questions and turn over documents and emails to find out who your accomplices were. You sort of comply but just enough to avoid claims that you are completely uncooperative.
Had you told the prosecutor you would turn over some more documents on the condition they stop the investigation before they ever saw the documents, what do you think the reaction would have been?
What is extraordinary here is that Issa didn’t have Federal Marshalls rip his jacket and shirt off, tie him face down on the table, stuff a copy of the subpoena in his mouth, give him 30 lashes with a bull whip, then tell him there would be a whipping every day at 9:00 AM until he fully complied or his flesh had been stripped off and his bones were polished clean.
I understand why Issa didn’t do that but had it been me I would have being showing extraordinary restraint had I only done that in the face of that level of contempt for the law and Congress. Prohibitions against “Cruel and unusual” punishments would just seem inadequate had they been able to even just read my thoughts. “Crimes against nature, humanity, and being an inspiration to Satan” would probably come up in my trial just for a glimpse of what I would have been thinking.