So by the same argument that it’s no big deal, it would be ok for them to publish a registry database of where all the bloggers live, right?
I mean, you’re just exercising your 1st amendment right to free speech, nothing wrong with that, right?
Maybe you’d like to let us know what YOUR street address is, so we can get started on that…
Freddyboomboom
December 20, 2009
Comment to Take a deep breath.
[I really need to jump in on this. Soon, I hope.–Joe]
[W]hat’s the Star done to me except list my like in the same section as preverts, bank robbers and marriage licenses?
Beseems every coal mine needs a canary or two; and they are silly, fluttery little birds most of the time. Doesn’t mean they’re not useful.
Roberta X
December 19, 2009
Comment to Take a deep breath
[There are several other people in the same comment section and on their blogs defending the appropriateness of getting upset about publishing information about concealed carry permit holders. I’ll post my own opinions on the topic soon. I’ve been very, very busy and blogging has been dropping off the end of the priority queue.–Joe]
Two woman were brutally attacked by a nut-case with a knife.
One of the lessons to be learned is that fighting back is an option that should be given serious consideration. But for some reason the plans are to learn bare handed self-defense rather than get training in commonly available tools specifically designed for engaging an attacker from a distance out of range of edged weapons.
As I learned in knife school, if you get in a knife fight you are going to get cut. Unarmed versus knife and your odds are nearly 100% that you are going to be loosing precious bodily fluids.
Make it your gun versus their knife and your odds of requiring stitches or a coffin go way down.
Firearms instructors in the area should be offering their services to these women.
[H/T to Mike for the email pointer.]
The irony of tyrants is correct.
On Bill of Rights Day the city of Sacramento claims, and joins a lawsuit to prevent, the Second Amendment from applying to them.
They are going to lose. 100% guaranteed. It might even be a 9-0 vote but the chutzpah of their effort is amazing.
What next? Announcing segregated water fountains on Martin Luther King’s Birthday?
Details on the Boomershoot 2010 Precision Rifle Clinic are now available. You don’t have to participate in the main event to get coaching and shoot in the clinic.
The clinic fills up every year and Gene has lots of repeat attendees so you know people are getting their money’s worth.
Sign up and learn how to turn money and time into earth shaking noise and smoke.
As a side note, Boomershoot statistics are here. Probably most interesting is that there are 110 participants and we have 11 bloggers-exactly 10%.
We will be having a blogger/media day again on Thursday April 22nd.
These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute. Anybody that uses a semi-automatic to hunt is an animal assassin. You know, that’s someone who would take an M-80 and throw it in a pond of water to kill fish.
Ralph Fascitelli
Board President of Washington Ceasefire
[“Weapons of war”? Almost none of the proposed firearms to ban have been used as military issue firearms let alone used in a war zone. They are sporting arms in common use and protected the Second Amendment.
If he can get 200 rounds a minute out of my Ruger P89 (considered an “assault weapon” by his definition) then he is a far, far better shooter than me or anyone I know.
Any firearm can be used to kill something. So how does that bit of information contribute to the discussion?
“Animal assassin”? I have a feeling that phrase is going to be used to mock Fascitelli for quite some time. And why bring up hunting? What has hunting got to do with the right to keep and bear arms?
A M-80 thrown into a pond to kill fish makes someone an “animal assassin”? No wonder their side is losing. They can’t make a cogent argument. He just wanders all over the place with his thoughts.
Every single sentence this guy said is either completely false or nonsensical. It’s another case of Crap for Brains.–Joe]
I’m not a big fan of holidays and Christmas is particularly annoying. Barb and the girls on the other hand put quite bit of effort into Christmas and enjoy it a great deal. I contain myself and help out as best I can and not spoil it for others. But sometimes people pick up on my attitude anyway (it couldn’t be the “Bah Humbug!” sweatshirt I wear every Christmas).
Daughter Xenia has been posting one Christmas picture per day this month starting here. All of them are good. Some of them are great.
My favorite so far is this one:
I suspect that picture was just for me.
As reported by Say Uncle, Dave Hardy, and Sebastian President Obama actually signed a bill into law Wednesday that would require passengers who carry firearms aboard AMTRAK be locked in boxes for their journey.
They claim “no one quite knows the origin of the mistake”.
I have absolutely no data to support my suspicion but I would like someone to explore the hypothesis that it was not a mistake. It seems to me that would be a very clever way to defeat legislation you didn’t like. Swap a word or ten in a 1000 page bill and who is going to notice until you drive your truck through the loophole you created or your political enemy gets dragged off to the gulag?
Some ignorant lawmakers (I repeat myself) announced they are going to attempt banning “assault weapons” in Washington State:
In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.
The lawmakers intend to propose the ban in the state legislative session that begins next month.
The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.
…
The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn’t be banned
Sorry guys. That horse has already left the barn.
Do you remember that little phrase “in common use” phrased in the Heller decision?
Emphasis in the following is mine.
On page 2:
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
…
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
On page 52:
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”
On page 55:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.
For the clueless bigots in Seattle what that means is that if you managed to get your proposed law passed the U.S. Supreme Court, if not the Washington State courts will overturn it. You know why? Because Obama was elected.
What? Yeah, you read that right.
When Obama won the election the U.S. population went on a gun buying spree the likes of which has never been seen before. The guns they bought were the very guns that those Seattle bigots want to ban. If they weren’t already considered “in common use” before Obama’s victory they sure are now.
And because of the delay from when a law is first proposed until the time it can become the law of the land anytime some lawmaker starts having the power to ban a particular type of gun the people will have put that gun into “common use” and thus render the law stillborn.
But if those knuckleheads want to waste their time on harassing activities I suppose that is better than some of the other things they might try.
[H/T to Chet at work and Ry for the pointer to the article.]
Update: Another article with video taken at the gun range where I go when in the Seattle area. And still another article which quotes Washington State AG Rob McKenna as saying, “If this bill is not even going to get a hearing, it is not worth a lot of energy”.
Dad often remarked the Providence that led him to the only girl on the Abilene Christian College campus who kept a rifle in her dormitory closet.
Chris Knox
Introduction to Neal Knox–The Gun Rights War
[A gun in the woman’s dormitory!
In the mid-1970s I knew kids that had guns in their dorm rooms too. But not anymore. We still have a lot of work to do to gain back all the ground we lost in the 20th Century. And we have to do it without one of our best fighters–Neal Knox.
I’m just starting the book. I hope I can learn lessons applicable to our present date battles. I met and talked to Neal twice and was extremely impressed both times. I wish he were still with us to share both the triumphs he prepared for us (such as Heller and the upcoming victory in McDonald v. Chicago) and to help in our next fights.–Joe]
There was a book written nearly 40 years ago that sits on my bookshelf only partially read. I read about a third of it about 25 years ago and got bored with it. If I had the time I would pull it off the shelf and give it another try and see if what he said could not be done is true with today’s computers. He claimed they will never be able to do some tasks. I am not entirely convinced such strong bets could be placed–if for no other reason than never is a very strong statement. But I do know that some revolutionary changes will have to be made before he can be proven wrong.
Chris has contributed some fascinating information to the discussion on exobrains. But not everyone may find it as fascinating or understandable as some of us geeks do. I hope to give a couple examples here that will be a little easier to relate to.
From a book I listened to recently I picked up an absolutely true insight that nearly caused a temporary meltdown of the control system of my muscular skeleton system. I nearly went deaf, blind, and limp as my brain dumped all I/O to the outside world and spent several seconds pondering the implications of that insight. What follows is a glimpse into the differences of computer “brains” and animal brains and highlights one area of tasks that are very, very difficult to do with todays computers and how much room for improvement there is. We may think computer hardware and software are really hot stuff. But when compared to meatware, for some tasks, its not even in the race.
We know how fast signals travel in the human nervous system. It isn’t electrical as much as it is chemical. People frequently say it’s electrical but, as Sean Flynn would say, that is only true for some values of electrical. Instead of signals taking about one nanosecond to travel one foot as is the case for true electrical signals it is (IIRC) something on the order of one millisecond per foot. About one million times slower. The “logic elements” of the brain have known response times as well. Thus by timing how long it takes for you to respond to some input we can determine how many “logic elements” were involved in making decisions based on the given input.
For example–suppose we were to show you set of random images that contain either a picture of some sort of cat (including leopards, lions, tigers, and domestic short hairs) or a picture of some sort of dog (including foxes, wolves, greyhounds, and Shih Tzus). You are to hit button “C” or “D” depending on whether it is a cat or a dog in the picture. If the pictures were clear and the animal was in full view normal, healthy humans could perform this task in well under one second. Even a three year old could do it. I’ve been programming computers professionally (admittedly in non-AI fields so this isn’t as strong a statement as I would like it to be) for about 25 years but I think it would be possible to choose the set of pictures such that the best computer program, given the same time limits, would have an error rate would be little better than chance yet the human would have an error rate of near zero.
In a similar vein I once had someone at the CIA tell me they had spent millions and millions of dollars developing software that would analyze photographs and find objects of military interest. These would be things like tanks, missles, and AK-47s. When the CIA is interested in these type of objects the picture they get to work with were not taken with the full cooperation of the owners of said military hardware. Hence the objects of interest may be in less than full view of the person taking the picture and a considerably harder problem than the dog and cat problem outlined above. Said CIA employee told me that after spending all those millions of dollars what they found worked best was if they put the pictures on the wall above the urinal and left a pencil nearby. At the end of the day all the objects of military interest would be circled. No computer could match that in processing time, accuracy, or cost.
Once we subtract out the nerve transmission time from your eyes to your brain and from your brain to your fingers we find that the maximum “depth” of the “logic elements” is about 200. There were many, many elements working in parallel but no path exceeded 200 elements in length. There is no existing computer, no matter how massively parallel it’s “logic elements” are, no matter how sophisticated the algorithms to take advantage of parallel processing power, that can reach a decision for the given problem with that sort of depth. The depth of the logic paths are going to be 100s of thousands of times deeper for the computer and yet it would end up with far, far, inferior decisions.
That still gives me goose bumps.
That sounds like something Jim would say. Except he would give excruciating detail about the method of execution.
Sean Flynn
December 16, 2009
In response to my suggestion that the U.S. Constitution should require any government employee who votes for or enforces a law or regulation that is later found to be unconstitutional is to be charged with and convicted for the crime of treason.
[Sean and I both like Jim.–Joe]
You knew he wasn’t going to let us gun owners get off easy, right? Things have been going more than a little too smoothly.
Here’s the scoop on the real plan:
Gun rights supporters have been shocked by the release of an internal campaign memo showing Obama planned to restrict gun access through fear and free market principles. The memo, drawn up in early 2008 with the help of Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, speculated that Obama’s election would lead to a hording of guns and ammunition that would raise prices.
…
“The people going out and spending thousands of dollars on guns right now aren’t the smartest and will spend beyond their means. We’ll see them have to hock their guns and ammo for food and soon we’ll be flooded with guns. This short term stimulus will come at a cost our children and grandchildren will have to bear,” claims the Brady Campaign, an anti-gun organization.
Sources inside the Obama administration say that a “Cash for Carbines” program was in the works. Unlike the previous “Cash for Clunkers”, it would simply use the gun buyback model to pay $40-$100 for guns that cost several times more, without encouraging buying more guns.
“We expect a “gun bubble” where prices crash after the market is saturated and gun owners put themselves deeply in debt. We’ll swoop in and offer to buy back the guns. With current credit card interest rates and payment schedules we expect more guns turned in than were bought, making for a net drop in total guns,” the source said.
The program would also include a “Cash for Cartridges” option where ammo could be bought cheap and distributed to police to ease the high cost of ammunition.
I have my doubts that Obama knows what the free market is, let alone is capable of using it to his advantage.
There is a conspiracy theorist for every data point–and almost as many satirists.
STI is going to be making a limited (200 pieces) run of one of their pistols for their 20th Anniversary. It will have a finish that many will consider too pretty to actually shoot:
TriTop slide with diamond LPI on top, decorative cuts on the dust cover, new STI 20th Anniversary serrations, STI presentation box, gold Titanium Nitride slide with Ion Bond black PVD frame and gold TiN and PVD’d exterior parts including the barrel.
They are taking orders now.
I shoot a STI gun in competition, I carry a STI gun and you should too.
When I read something like this:
Many experts and laymen consider gun control, which Democrats generally support and Republicans generally oppose, to be an essential component of anti-crime policy.
I just have to wonder what type of “expert” considers gun control to be an essential component of anti-crime policy.
The data doesn’t support that claim and the number of criminalogists who advocate gun control is very small.
I keep thinking of this expert (full sized version here and here):
After all, nearly all advocates of gun control are socialists.
Caleb did well on Fox News against Dennis Henigan from the Brady Campaign.
When a young amateur goes up a seasoned professional in his prime you expect the professional to “mop the floor” with the young upstart. That didn’t happen.
While it shows Caleb knows his stuff what it shows more than anything is the weakness of the Brady Campaign position.
Just as the Fourteenth Amendment extended protection of the enumerated rights of the first eight amendments to violations by state governments, so too did it extend federal protection of the pre-existing unenumerated rights “retained by the people.”
Randy Barnett
Regarding the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
[Via a lead from Kevin.
What Barnett says may be the true intent of the 14th Amendment but these days when someone questions whether something the Federal Government does is constitutional or not they look at you like you are nuts and ask, “Are you serious?“
This is Bill of Rights Day. Celebrate what you have left while you can.–Joe]
The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is performing it’s intended function and the Supreme Court apparently agrees:
The Supreme Court has turned away a new challenge to a 2005 law that gives gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits by shooting victims.
The justices on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Hector Adames Jr. to revive his lawsuit against the Beretta U.S.A. Corp. over the accidental shooting death of his 13-year-old son.
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
John Kenneth Galbraith
[Being an economist himself he should know. Further evidence that other uses are somewhat questionable at best can be easily seen if you just look around a little bit (here for example).–Joe]
Here is what I think they don’t get…It was their irresponsible risk-taking in many cases that brought the economy to collapse.
…
And they don’t get in some cases that they wouldn’t be where they are today, and they certainly would not be paying the bonuses they are paying today, if their government hadn’t taken extraordinary actions.
Larry Summers
December 13, 2009
White House economic adviser referring to the banking industry. He also chairs the National Economic Council.
White House Lashes Out at Bankers
[In the first sentence he hopes you won’t get it was Federal regulations which required irresponsible risk-taking. In the second sentence he hints that he knows this is true and that the U.S. government rewarded that same behavior.
If you think the government knows what it is doing in terms of the economy then you need to do more reading or if pictures and minimal words are all you are up for then check this out (via Linoge and John Lott):
–Joe]