Assorted Meanderings

Speaking of Canada.

2012-02-15T21:02:00.000-05:00

Sebastian links to the Successful House vote to repeal the Canadian Long Gun Registry.

Some notes from the article.

Bernier said that the Ecole Polytechnique shooting — the Montreal Massacre that provided the political impetus for the long-gun registry — could not have been prevented.

“The weapon used at Ecole Polytechnique was registered,” he said. “The fact of registering long guns does not permit us to fight efficiently against crime.”

Yes it's like registering doesn't do anything to stop the criminal element.

And here's a rollout of "gun crime"

Clement was asked how victims of gun crime and their families, who will assemble on Parliament Hill for the vote, would feel to know MPs are popping champagne in celebration.

“It’s important to note we’re on the side of the victims, including those of gun crime,” he said. “We’re with people who have been dealt a terrible situation, a tragedy because of the bad guys.”

And note that the vote to end the registry basically came from one party. Which does not bode well given Canada's 3.5 party system. There's also that in a parliamentary system it's much easier for the majority party to do what it wants.

Almost all opposition MPs voted against the legislation — except for New Democrats Bruce Hyer and John Rafferty, who sided with the government.

...

Candice Hoeppner, whose private member’s bill to abolish the registry was defeated in 2010 after a narrow vote, singled out NDP members who pledged to their constituents to vote with the government, only to change sides and vote to save the registry at the last moment.

She named NDP MPs Charlie Angus, Nikki Ashton, Alex Atamanenko, Dennis Bevington, Nathan Cullen, Claude Gravelle and Carol Hughes as those who went against the wishes of their constituents.

“Opposition members cannot be let off the hook for saying one thing and doing another,” she said. “All of these members should know that many of their colleagues were fired by their real bosses: law abiding Canadians who are voting.”

And then you see the "effective gun control" line being trotted out.

“These proposals ignore the concerns of victims of gun violence who are mourning their dead or tending to their crippling injuries: this must never happen again,” she said. “We must do all in our power to prevent this carnage, including supporting effective gun control.”

Coalition members, including YWCA Canada CEO Paulette Senior and Alexa Conradi, president of the Quebec Women Federation, excoriated the government for its “ideological” devotion to ending the registry.

“The safety of women must take precedence over a small ‘bureaucratic hassle,’ ” Conradi said. “The decision by the government to delete the existing data can only be described as a punitive measure that has little to do with privacy and much to do with ideology.”

Yes, it's not like the data in the registry could ever be abused. But no, having your property being capriciously confiscated by the state, that's just a "hassle".

And another interesting thing, in every single example of "gun crime" an anti gives in that article... the registry had done nothing to prohibit or help trace the weapon. In the whole article there's no example of a success story or the registry working or doing anything to reduce crime.

Which is to be expected. It doesn't matter that the registry has failed to do anything in reducing crime, what's important is the intent in passing it and the symbolism of the scheme itself.

Unfortunately, even among the pro-gun side in the article there's not a word of self defense. It's all about sport shooters and hunters. That's a shame because to ignore self defense is the key aspect to firearms rights. Without it you're stuck arguing on the anti's terms.

Defensive gun uses are generally the elephant in the room for the Anti-Rights types, as in an argument where pro-gun people can only frame their gun ownership in terms of sport and collecting, that argument will ALWAYS lose, as no matter what as the negatives will be the abuses of guns in society, and the positives will be fun-and-games. No rational person will chose the gun. But if you frame guns as a tool to protect innocent lives and resist tyranny, and cite the number of lives SAVED by personal firearms EVERYDAY, and compare that with the innocent lives harmed by them, well there is no contest.

But if Canada can get rid of the Long Gun Registry, it's evidence that other countries can roll back gun control too and that the ratchet does not go just one way. Maybe one day Canada can have their own CCW "revolution".

Roll your own.

2012-02-15T19:28:00.000-05:00

Jason at Shall Not Be Questioned does another home milling project.

This time making a 22 AR lower out of Derlin.

Very neat stuff. He's also done work on aluminum lowers too.

It's cool to see it go from a block of plastic to a functional and legal firearm (in both definitions as the project is legal, and that chunk of plastic is what the law considers the gun).

We can all put in in the standard bit about Gun Control being a dead-letter here.

An interesting thing to consider is that in the US homemade firearms are already legal and even the most restrictive states allow Joe-Average to buy some sort of gun. Then add in that 70% of the country is at the very least Shall Issue, and there's only one state and DC that do not have any kind of CCW.

So, in all, the effect of a person being able to "print up" a gun because they want too would not be as destabilizing in the US as it would be in a country with very high gun control.

It's all about reducing "barriers to entry" in the US there are less barriers than in a country like the UK or Japan.

An interesting question will also be if there is a cultural or legal shift. Take Canada, a country where 22% of households have a gun, but only a tenth of those have a handgun. And Carry Permits are as mythical and "special" as Hawaiian permits.

So one can see that increased access to firearms may not translate to increased carry rights. It's not just the Right to Keep Arms, after all.

Science?

2012-02-14T21:27:00.000-05:00

Looking at some scientist's gobsmacked reaction towards measurements of glacial ice not melting Steven Green notes something.

If scientists are stunned by simple data collection, they’re doing it wrong. Their job is to dispassionately collect and analyze the data, not get all worked up because it didn’t fit their pet theory.

Confirmation bias is a nasty little bugger, and why a scientist has to be very careful to not get too attached to his or her theories. It's not about proving your theory was right; it's about finding a theory that matches the empirical data and can predict future empirical data.

But apparently all that goes out the window if you're saving the world...

Know your Place Serf! 2

2012-02-13T18:21:00.000-05:00

Once again we have "Special privilages for special people."

Of course the head of Media Matters can have armed body gaurds and even have his personal assitant illegally carry a Glock. He's an important man that needs protection against "right wing attack."

Just don't tell his funders... or his readers... or his writers.

So, let me get this straight. The attacks on lawful gun owners are coming from a group that is headed by someone who hires an armed driver, suffers from a questionable mental state, has publicly admitted to drug use, and had an assistant violate gun laws on his behalf. The organization leader isn’t actually concerned about the hypocrisy of it all, but rather that funding might dry up if his gun hiring habits are exposed.

Oh and if you work for him and object you'll be fired. Course you'll be fired if these so sensitive and tolerant people think you're too ugly too. Or complain about the drugs and sex.

Geeze. As Mr. Evilwrench notes. These guys fulfill their stereotypes even better than they say we do.

But you can trust them to be a voice for gun control. And you better, because if you don't play ball they'll come after you.

One of the strategies Media Matters employs in trying to make sure that all reporters only provide a left-leaning vision of America is to release the hounds on smaller reporters working for regional papers. They throw the weight of their nationwide fundraising and contact list, as well as the bloggers who carry their water, onto reporters who are just trying to cover the news as it relates to the towns around them.

And from the same parent article we see that these clowns help the White House create and enforce enemies lists.

So remember the next time Media Matters rails on how some law or regulation would make things "more fair"... remember that if they find the law inconvenient themselves, they'll just ignore it.

And here's another example of friends of the Crown getting special privileges.

JayG: Doing it so you don't have to.

2012-02-11T22:43:00.001-05:00

Lasers are good and can come in quite handy.
Same with bayonets, quite useful.
Pocket guns are compact and can make up for their recoil and capacity and caliber issues by presenting accessibility.

JayG, of course, combines all three.

Edit: Updated by talking with Jay on GBC

[22:54] <+The_Jack> Jay, you should get some 22 cal shotshell
[22:54] <+The_Jack> You can market the "Micro judge"
[22:54] * +JayG *has* 22LR shotshells...
[22:55] <+JayG> ...
[22:55] <+JayG> The_Jack, you are a genius
[22:55] <+JayG> an evil, evil genius

Muhahaha.

Today's Project: Remora Small Magazine Holster

2012-02-10T20:21:00.001-05:00

I mentioned modifying a Remora Magazine Holster yesterday.

Weer'd was not kidding when he warned that the holsters were designed for full size magazines.

They double version works great and will be handy for carrying two 1911 magazines whenever I use my IWB holster.

But I also got 2 single ones for my LCP and my PM45.

Well I did the mod for my LCP tonight and then tested it for a bit, and I think it'll work as an IWB or pocket magazine holder.

Left is my LCP in the Desantis Nemesis holster. Right is two magazines in the Remora holder (which is made of about the same material).

Below is what the holder originally looked like.

The Remora had good stitching and quality material. I'll know more about how it wears with some testing, but so far been rather happy, and it was easy to modify.

So if you have a pocket gun and you want to carry your ammunition better than just loosely in a pocket, this can work for you.

Though if you solely want IWB carry, It may be better to simply sew along the bottom of the holder to shorten the depth of the pocket.

PS: It's kind of funny that the first real thing I do with my work bench (other than polishing some wood grips) is swwing.

Term of the day: Uncle Bruin’s Chastity Dungeon

2012-02-09T23:23:00.009-05:00

LabRat has today's nightmare fuel.

The video is only a minute long but the questions will keep you up all night.

It starts out as a clunky video about how it's rad to save yourself for marriage. Fair enough... I suppose. Lord knows I won't judge on that, but using a teddy-bear as your font of wisdom? Really?

And then...

Where are they at the end? Is that a church? Where are the other people? Even if you elope you can’t get married without a minister or a justice of the peace.

Oh god, is that his basement? Did the scary guy who thinks a plush God Bear talks to him and cuddles with him take that poor girl to Uncle Bruin’s Chastity Dungeon?

One thing I'm glad for, that final scene didn't have an altar in it.

George Lucas: Delusional Revisionist and Hysterical about Self Defense.

2012-02-09T20:55:00.001-05:00

Huh. So George Lucas doubles down on the whole "Han shot first" nerdwar by declaring that Han never ever shot first. Despite what your lying eyes would have told you.

The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo [who seemed to be the one who shot first in the original] to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn't. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.

I'm not a StarWars fan. I find the Jedi to be a creepy bunch of arrogant hypocrites. And the most I've seen of the new movies is from the Plinket reviews. And so I don't really care. I am amused at how Lucas seems to have gone insane and seems to revel in "destroying" StarWars.

But what struck me was something else.

That's why I won't talk about how Lucas' statement is a blatant falsehood given that even I can see that in the original Greedo didn't get a shot off. Which makes order mood.

But this isn't about the changes. It's that Lucas felt that he had to clarify that Han wasn't a cold-blooded killer. Ace explains the insanity:

My, you have to be sitz-tinkler to get all worried about the message you're sending by having Han "gun Greedo down" like a "cold-blooded murderer."

For one thing, you know, Greedo had a gun on him, and announced, clearly, that he intended to kill Han in the next few seconds.

This seems "bad ass" only because of silly movies in the fifties and stuff when singing cowboys always let the bad guy have the first shot. That continued for decades.

Really think about it. Han's moment to establish is badass questionable morals (something that Lucas in his later years found upsetting and required retconning) was... shooting a man that had pulled a gun on him. Which is a pretty black and white case of self defense there.

Anyway, this seems more "cold-blooded" than it is. To the extent these films have anything remotely to do with "realism," it's more realistic that you'd just shoot a guy who's aiming to kill you. Without granting him the advantage of getting to shoot first.

None of this would have seemed surprising had it not been established as a movie convention -- and only a convention in the movies -- that good guys are morons who are willing to risk a bullet to the head in the interests of Being Good Sports About This Whole Trying To Murder Each Other Thing.

Again... if someone got the drop on you, pointed a gun at you, and you were armed and able to covertly draw, aim and... what stop and only pull the trigger after your attacker shot you?

Was Han supposed to wait his turn? Make sure that Greedo wasn't bluffing?

This is right up there with Joan "We have to give the criminal every benefit of the doubt" Petterson.

If you really wanted to have Han be shady and morally grey, you'd have him shoot Greedo the second Greedo shows up and hints about Jabba, or maybe wait until Greedo merely shows his weapon (though if Greedo made a move to unholster...).

Also I'm talking about contemporary US self defense law. Not say... a wild rough and tumble spaceport dive bar full of illegal activity. Greeze.

Also naming an evil bounty hunter Greedo? Really Lucas?

Waiver-mania!

2012-02-09T18:11:00.000-05:00

There's a reason the saying "Selective enforcement of the law is the first sign of tyranny" has teeth.

It's because it turns the rule of law and equality before the law into a system of feudal patronage and indulgences. If a state or organization can just get a waiver from a law then that gives them an unfair advantage, and indebts them to the man that granted said waiver.

At least Obamacare had provisions for waivers (which were generously doled out to faithful supporters). But now Obama's taken it upon himself to deem where No Child Left Behind is applicable... without even a legal fig-leaf.

And of course, the consequences of a Lord of the Flies style, whimsical executive without any checks and balances isn't something the Left apparently worries about.

At least when their guy's in office. Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Gitmo open. Well, well, isn't that convenient.

Combos.

2012-02-09T17:56:00.000-05:00

What do you get when you combine a laser detecting target and a laser emitting in-chamber device?

A very neat dryfire practice method, where you can know where your gun is aimed.

Via Tam

In other news my Remora ammo holders came in. And Weerd is not kidding when he says that the carriers just swallow small magazines. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure I can cut the material back ab it and resew the edging.

More info when I try the rework.

Guess the source 2:

2012-02-07T17:49:00.000-05:00

After yesterday's fun, there came another quotation from a notable tin-pot dictator who is also against "deadly commerce"

Take a guess:

"One would think that a church would feel a special obligation to make sure that they weren’t fueling a black market for a particularly deadly form of commerce."

Why yes, that is term-limit-exempt Mayor Bloomberg bleating about something thousands of miles from New York City.

Remember this is a man who in addition to being the food, alcohol, trans-fat nanny has also (incorrectly) bragged about how he's got enough armed men to make top-tier army.

So is it no wonder that he sounds and awful lot like the Venezuelan Communist Dictatorship?

Hey Rube!

2012-02-07T17:42:00.000-05:00

Remember when SuperPacs were a threat against democracy? And were a tool of the fatcats?

Well get ready to recalibrate your opinions!

I'm sure all those that agreeded with the president's assement of Super Pacs as being dangerous tools that bring too much money are A-okay with him using them for his own aims.

You see, it's different when the President does it.

Just imagine the reaction to Bush doing some of the stuff Obama's done... oh wait, you don't have to imagine for a lot of it.

And here's a couple more rubes that realize that when you put your trust in a giant bloated goverment you might get screwed over. Governments can lie? Who knew?

Maybe, just maybe some people will realize that the government is not your friend, it is nor your family. Instead, they will realize that it is force. Kurt Schlichter is a bit optimistic.

The Republicans, pushed by a groundswell of opposition from conservative new media types, bailed. SOPA was a non-starter, and now everyone will be looking the next time Hollywood tries to play them. Hey, Hollywood, there’s a new paradigm in Tinseltown.

And the Democrats who supported SOPA – and who could not back out no matter how outraged the nutroots got – ended up looking both foolish and like tools of the corporate power structure. And that’s just what they are.

But it gets better.

It gets better because this was a great object lesson all around. To those in Republicans in Congress, it brought attention to a subject that had been sadly ignored but is vital to a huge number of influential voters. It gave them an issue – Internet freedom – that is truly congruent with conservative values, unlike the past political payoffs to connected Hollywood cronies. We conservatives can run on this.

It was also a lesson to young, tech-savvy people who see themselves as culturally liberal and just kind of voted that way, mostly out of habit. The group that really shares their values – creativity, enterprise, freedom – is the conservativees. The liberals they counted themselves among wanted to shut down websites, not the conservatives. SOPA opened a lot of eyes."

Perhaps. In my experience a lot of even casual independents see Democrats being corrupt as a sign of "Corporatist American Goverment" while Republicans being corrupt is "Right Wing Extermism."

There's also the very creepy notion that those in government will be less inclined to abuse their powers than those in corporations. Never mind that governance has far greater economic, legal, and financial power, not to mention uniquely possessing coercive powers.

Nope, there's still the idea that someone driven by greed is worse than someone driven by "good government". Despite the fact that a corporation can only meddle in your life if you agree to do business with them or are mandated to by the State. The State has no such limitations.

However to those inclined to open their eyes, this does help. And people, even on the left, have noticed which side was moved by internet freedom.

I've been working with a pro-gun Canadian friend and been able to show hims how safe storage laws and registration can be abused. Even in his own country.

He's also been very receptive to events like the Carry at Starbucks on the 14th. And he's expressed a desire to participate, despite his own country's laws.

Guess the source:

2012-02-06T19:56:00.000-05:00

Of this spokesperson proposing a crazy governmental scheme:

“As of March, every last gun shop remaining should be closed. That is to say the perverse chapter of the commercialization of firearms and munitions [will be] over.”

Sounds like some gun grabber blabbing about the evil NRA and gun lobby right?
Especially, when you put in this preceding bit "saying that articles used to threaten human lives cannot not be sold freely."

Guess who?

The Venezuelan Minister of the Interior and Justice, Tareck El Aissami.

So yes, Hugo has decided that nationalizing everything in sight, and controlling the media isn't enough, total disarmament of everyone but his cronies is required.

Because articles that threaten human lives should only be in the hands of the State.

Miguel has the full quotation with identifying nouns.

Gun Control, it's catnip for Dictators.

Which says a lot about the mentality of those in the US that want it. Nice to see that the UN will happily side with totalitarian thugs bent on ruling a pliant and defenseless population.

Oh and the UN was right there in Caracas at the International Seminar on Arms and Munitions Control and Disarmament. And they approved of the measures.

Sugar: they Ban because they Can.

2012-02-05T15:29:00.000-05:00

Prohibitionism ahoy!
Those neo Puritans sure hate the idea of someone somewhere having fun and making the 'wrong' choicer.

The Nannystate defined. Sugar is just like cigarettes and alcohol and we need massive taxes to "nudge" you proles into the right decisions. Which makes sense that these social engineers laud $11 for a pack of smokes and wish it were higher.

And bonus for first world problems and the bright idea of spiking food prices.

It's like how gun control is about control.

Via Weer'd

Credible threats.

2012-02-04T23:29:00.001-05:00

Oleg Volk talks about the threat of force and when it is recognized by an aggressor.

Interesting stuff. And some very amusing photos.

And quote of the day, on the video that Oleg links to about an 11 year old girl prepared to defend herself against three intruders: "Gutierrez realized hiding didn't do any good."

So instead she armed herself, and thankfully the intruders ran off. (Yes, you'll find most gun nuts don't actually want to have to fire their weapons in anger).

It's not just 11 year olds that realize that, 10 year olds do too.

Of course in Canada Miss Gutierrez would be the one brought up on charges.

Safe Self Defense Storage

2012-02-03T20:16:00.001-05:00

It looks like Canada's got a handy catch 22 going on.

Sure self defense is technically legal, but if you use a gun to defend yourself they'll get you with an "Unsafe Storage" violation, even if you actually did have your weapon "safely" stored and somehow had enough time to unlock your safe and make ready.

Witness this case:

Just when was Ian Thomson guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm? Mr. Thomson is the Port Colborne, Ont., man currently standing trial in a Welland, Ont. courtroom after he and his home were attacked by firebombers in August, 2010. (That's correct, in the topsy-turvy world of Canadian criminal justice, Mr. Thomson and his home were the ones attacked and yet he is the one on trial.)

Having dropped other more serious charges - such as dangerous use of a firearm - because they concluded there was no reasonable chance of winning a conviction, Crown prosecutors have nonetheless bullied ahead with unsafe storage charges against Mr. Thomson.

Nevermind that Mr. Thomson has proven that he could have unlocked his safe and loaded his guns in the given time frame. The Canadian government has decided to see fit to punish a man for defending his house from attacking arsonists.

Via Clayton Cramer.

I suppose they don't want to send the message that self defense is acceptable. Because then Canadians might start using their guns to defend themselves on their property, and even worse demand carry permits be given to normal citizens, instead of an elite few.

As Weer'd said Self Defense and protection against tyranny are the main reasons for firearms ownership.

It's telling that in Canada they use the latter to punish the former.

Right now, the Canadian government would prefer guns merely be hunting and sporting implements.
It makes them that much easier to ban.

At least there's been some progress up there.

Apathy now!

2012-02-02T21:04:00.000-05:00

Ace talks about how different the vast swath of "independents" are from the politically active and obsessive. He also talks about one of the nice things about the US form of governance.

One of the great blessings of the United States is that in the large politics really doesn't matter all that much. Sure we care - a lot- and have plenty of strong opinions about national politics. But the reality is that for most people whoever controls the White House has little discernible effect on their daily lives and that of their friends and families.

But in other countries politics /matters/: who has political power determines whether you keep your job, can get enough food, whether your family can stay in the country, or even whether you live or die. By contrast we have the luxury of not having to care about politics and still leading a happy, pleasant life. And that's no small thing.

Note that there are some that want that to change. And that the happy sleepy dream state of much of the populace is part of the political problems we have. That and people like free ice-cream and would rather support the man promising them more goodies than some fool who tells 'em it wasn't free and the bill's due.

As Frank J shows why Independents are so happy with that system.

I know what some of you are thinking: “I don’t know that this apathy idea will work for me.” Well, that’s your problem — you’re thinking about it. Thinking leads to opinions, and opinions eradicate apathy. Instead, you just need to shrug your shoulders and say, “Eh.” Then — BOOM! — the argument is over.

Oh well.

Common Sense.

2012-01-31T21:01:00.000-05:00

Emily Miller of the Washington Times has been trying to get a handgun in Washington DC. Note this is not to get a carry permit (DC does not allow carry), this is simply to own.

She's been documenting the process for the Washington Times.

Needless to say it's been Kafkaesque. Here's her testifying before the DC city council on the byzantine, expensive and time consuming process.

Now how does the CSGV (last seen trying to extort money from Starbucks) react to Miller's complaints?

Complaints like: To get a handgun in DC I have to drive to another state to a strange man who I know is armed and knows I am not armed.

Why with mockery of course. Sebastian and Weer'd look at this Brady retread's lashing out.

This isn't exactly a winning strategy. Look at the vid, does that seem like a reasonable or sane system? Does that sound like people who are upholding the Constitution?

No wonder they see the coercive power as a virtue.

2012-01-31T20:14:00.000-05:00

Ace looks at those that seek to use the State to make us all "better".
About people who can't accept that others may believe differently than them, that they may act in a way seen as unwise or even immoral by others, and those that can't even wonder if the plans they want to foist on everyone just might be wrong.

They are so right that of course the coercive power of the state -- with its machinery of stripping away the property and liberty of those who run afoul of it -- should be deployed to wipe out mendicants and heretics.

One of the most cherished rights, never expressed anywhere but truly central to any truly free society, is the right to be Wrong. By which I mean, you should not just be free to do the things which the hegemonic culture deems to be "right." No one ever tries to outlaw that which they themselves believe to be right.

What they attempt to do, of course, is outlaw that which they believe to be wrong.

If you do not respect a citizen's right to be wrong -- if your first impulse is to use the frightening machinery of state coercion to compel him to be "right," as you see "right" -- then you do not respect him at all.

This is the chief character flaw of the leftist movement -- their inability to respect anyone at all but their own. A very provincial and solipisitically childish way to view the world, of course, which leads to a vicious arrogance in attempting to pound, pound, pound square pegs into the round holes the state has cut for them.

Go to the link and you'll see Catholics and Abortion are just a smokescreen. The real issue is organizations not doing what those controlling the State demand of them.

Now fit that in with the same people that want a more "militarized" and stronger State.

And fit that with another group that dreams of using the state to disarm all that disagree with their worldview.

A good work bench

2012-01-31T18:32:00.000-05:00

Last week Unc was talking about The gun industry, media, blogs and press and one thing he noted was how the gun bloggers accentuated the negative.

That's true enough, just look at my Kimber blogging.

But that got me thinking on things that are good.

Seeing that I did not have a work space and was using my computer desk or dining room table, my father decided to order a work bench as a Christmas present for me.

It was custom made by a small company in South Carolina and thus only arrived last week. However, there was a problem as the holes on the two front legs were ground too far and the Lag Bolts could not engage. I contacted the owner by email with the problem and within ten minutes he called back and discussed the issue.

The next morning he shipped out a full set of replacement legs by second day air. They arrived and I've assembled it and am quite satisfied with the product and the customer service.

The company is American Workbench and if you want a very sturdy, high quality, extremely customization work bench I'll recommend them. And they do make excellent and appreciated gifts.

Term of the day: A Box of Gun

2012-01-30T18:19:00.000-05:00

In the comments on a post talking about how hard it is to disassemble John Pedersen's Remington 51, the Tam explains what a box of gun is:

JayG,

"And when I say "eventually", I mean it sat in the safe in a large plastic bag for three years before the scars - both physical and emotional - healed sufficiently to try a second time..."

You had what it known in the industry as "a box of gun".

I cannot tell you how many times over the years I've booked in a big sack or box of parts... :D

Heh. Great term.

A Soviet Surprise.

2012-01-29T19:54:00.001-05:00

Bill Whittle: Government, where it comes from where it goes.

2012-01-28T21:59:00.000-05:00

Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you that government spending or entitlements aren't a problem or that we can fix it all with higher tax rates or cutting the military or even just by cutting the Department of Education or Foreign Aide.

Or that the Government works 90% of the time... yeah, yeah it sure does.

The old joke that we're becoming a less and less a country and more and more a pension plan with a military is becoming too optimistic.

"Sane" Governance

2012-01-28T17:27:00.000-05:00

The government secretly wants to take your guns away:
• Any sane gun law will lead to the government being able to take your guns away.

Linoge tears into a juicy treat the new gun control organization the "National Gun Victims Action Council" has dropped into his lap, with ngvac set gun control up the bomb

After showing the massively incestuous organizational relationships of the antis he goes into a bit of manna that the ngvac dropped.

And look at the phrasing of the sentence – note how they simply say "take your guns"; not "take criminals’ guns", not "take convicted persons’ guns", not "take some people’s guns". Nope, take your guns – as in every single firearm-owning person who happened upon their webpage and happened to read that sentence. Nevermind the "why" of the situation (especially because it boils down to nothing more complicated than their deep-seated, pathological, uncontrollable fear of an inanimate object) – these people want to empower the government to whimsically and capriciously confiscate your private property… ironically, at the point of a gun.

Is it any wonder we're suspicious about governmental action and giving them more power? Just look at what the RMCP can do up in Canada.

Like my previous post, I'll point to the amazing sense of trust and awe in governmental power. They're perfectly fine with giving the government the ability to remove property without any due process and to abridge the Bill of Rights. The First in the previous post, the Second in this.

And another points is the implicit assertion that if you're a part of the "right crowd" you'll get to keep your guns. Heck you might even be allowed to carry a handgun, just like in New Jersey, New York City, Boston, or San Francisco.

Again and again we see that these people are not against guns, free speech, or wealth in general, they're just against the "wrong" people having said things.

Marching together for the greater glory or the State.

2012-01-28T17:02:00.000-05:00

George F. Will on the Progressive's infatuation with militarizing the State and Society.

Obama, an unfettered executive wielding a swollen state, began and ended his address by celebrating the armed forces. They are not “consumed with personal ambition,” they “work together” and “focus on the mission at hand” and do not “obsess over their differences.” Americans should emulate troops “marching into battle,” who “rise or fall as one unit.”

Well. The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics.

Yeah... anyone else creeped out by the head of the military wishing the rest of the country acted like the military? Including his political rivals?

Progressive presidents use martial language as a way of encouraging Americans to confuse civilian politics with military exertions, thereby circumventing an impediment to progressive aspirations — the Constitution and the patience it demands. As a young professor, Woodrow Wilson had lamented that America’s political parties “are like armies without officers.” The most theoretically inclined of progressive politicians, Wilson was the first president to criticize America’s founding. This he did thoroughly, rejecting the Madisonian system of checks and balances — the separation of powers, a crucial component of limited government — because it makes a government that cannot be wielded efficiently by a strong executive.

Franklin Roosevelt agreed. He complained about “the three-horse team of the American system”: “If one horse lies down in the traces or plunges off in another direction, the field will not be plowed.” And progressive plowing takes precedence over constitutional equipoise among the three branches of government. Hence FDR’s attempt to break the Supreme Court to his will by enlarging it.

Limited government and checks and balances? Can't do that if it gets in the way of progress!

That section is followed by "Roosevelt [saying] it was “a mistake to assume that the virtues of war differ essentially from the virtues of peace.” In such a time, dissent is disloyalty." And contemporary examples of the Media gleefully cheering dictatorship.

Obama, aspiring to command civilian life, has said that in reforming health care, he would have preferred an “elegant, academically approved” plan without “legislative fingerprints on it” but “unfortunately” he had to conduct “negotiations with a lot of different people.” His campaign mantra “We can’t wait!” expresses progressivism’s impatience with our constitutional system of concurrent majorities. To enact and execute federal laws under Madison’s institutional architecture requires three, and sometimes more, such majorities. There must be majorities in the House and Senate, each body having distinctive constituencies and electoral rhythms. The law must be affirmed by the president, who has a distinctive electoral base and election schedule. Supermajorities in both houses of Congress are required to override presidential vetoes. And a Supreme Court majority is required to sustain laws against constitutional challenges.

“We can’t wait!” exclaims Obama, who makes recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess, multiplies “czars” to further nullify the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to advise and consent, and creates agencies (e.g., Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board and Dodd-Frank’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) untethered from legislative accountability.

Like other progressive presidents fond of military metaphors, he rejects the patience of politics required by the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

Again, we see the idea of more state power and removing dissident as all being a virtue. Provided that "the right" people are in charge. Which is of a part with yesterday's post.

And here's another example of waxing poetic about militarization of the federal goverment.
Sounds familiar.

And by pure coincidence the very people that point to the Military as a shining example of all that is right with the government, and that say the goverment is already too small, find the military as the one and only area that can be cut.

George Will's article via Andy at Ace of Spades

Whether they're fetishizing China, attempting to reorder society to combat fictitious global warming or taking over the healthcare system, rest assured that when you cut through their high-minded bullshit, the heart of a petty tyrant beats in every "progressive".

By pure coincidence Mr. A demands socializing Healthcare by saying we have a Socialized Military (among other services) and that the military and the government can "get things done" and be trusted to do that instead of dick around with profits.

He has also gone on long triads listing all the industries he does not want to have the government take over in a single payer system, but given things like the above those assurances ring a bit hollow.

Especially as this is a man who twice has wished for amendments to the First Amendment. All to remove free speech from political rivals. (Once to make First Amendment exception for entities deemed to not be telling "the truth" and another to ban corporate influence of elections. Unions, approved news outlets, and other cleared advocacy outlets excepted of course).

Such wishing was spurned by complaints that the government has "too many checks and not enough balance." Why yes, he is saying that a powerful executive should take more power and act in spite of congressional resistance in order to serve a greater good.

And that complaints against said power grabs are defacto untruthful and thus should be banned... if only that pesky constitution weren't in the way.

So it seems perfectly natural that his solution to media outlets of a disagreeable political bent is to amend the constitution so that the state can ban them.

The scary part is how uncomprehending he is to how creepy and extreme such ideas are. The sad part is that he is completely uncomprehending of such governmental powers ever being used against him.

As much as he complains about Republicans and their evil, fascistic, racist, hateful ways, he seems perfectly fine with creating a Bureau of Truth (that can strip people and organizations of their fist amendment rights if they are deemed untruthful), and then handing the keys of the BoT to any potential Republican president.

Does he think that the republicans will never regain governmental control?

That they would not use the powers of the BoT to ban free speech (note Mr. A wants the Dems to use it and by his rhetoric should be deathly afraid of the Republicans having it)?

That the BoT's internal bureaucracy will only ban "the right" kinds of free speech in spite of who their nominal boss is?

None of those options are particularly heartening, but are to be expected of someone tho is infatuated with the power of the state.

Or you could just carry a gun.

2012-01-28T16:13:00.000-05:00

Cracked looks into the problems of fist fighting with :6 Painful Things Nobody Tells You About Fighting

A lot of the pitfalls of trying to use your body without enough training, the limitations of said training, and the importance of having the right mentality.

Or you can just click on this picture by Oleg Volk

Know your Place...

2012-01-27T22:14:00.001-05:00

I do want to do a bit on government as a monopoly of violence and add the proper restrictions: government is the legal monopoly on aggressive violence.

That way crime and self defense are accounted for. And one can see the immediate dangers of a monopolistic collective that can legally beat you up, take your stuff, and toss you in the gaol.

Here's a little bit on the difference between American and German traditions on that idea. And instead of legitimate I went with legal as the legitimacy is derived from being legal.

Here's a bit on how the President just doesn't get America.

I don’t mean that Obama is crazy. What is so evident, however, is that he is so detached from reality. Even assuming Obama’s political goals, how he goes about expressing and implementing them proves that point. The issues and the America Obama described in the speech have nothing to do with current issues and problems. The ridiculous bit with Warren Buffett’s secretary—income tax and capital gains tax are two different things—the talk about “fairness” and “teamwork,” simply don’t address what’s going on: things like the economic recovery just not happening, costs of production being too high, investor’s confidence shaken, government spending wasted to an extent far beyond what’s been seen before, and the nation’s resources misapplied in a ruinous manner.

Obama’s major speech in Kansas, an echo of one given by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, also indicates what’s wrong with this president. It’s as if he’s half in the past—populism against the big monopolistic corporations running roughshod over a feeble government and defenseless workers—and half in the future, pushing a green utopia.

Second, Obama doesn’t have a very good understanding of America, its history, its system or its institutions. We see this constantly in his attitude toward the basic governmental structures. He simply doesn’t seem, for example, to comprehend the role of Congress. Obama really thinks that Congress has no right to thwart him, and he isn’t quite sure that the Supreme Court, not him, determines what is Constitutional. He has no real idea how the economic system works, including the function of the bankruptcy laws or of the private enterprise system generally . What could be more ironic than the fact that the man who is supposed to be the smartest guy around is, in functional terms, the dumbest guy around?

...

Consider how a functional liberal Democratic president would be behaving. He or Hillary would not have thrown trillions of dollars down the toilet for absolutely nothing in return. That kind of president would not sincerely believe that the economy is doing okay. That kind of president would be a political survivor—think of Bill Clinton—who would understand that he had to change course and truly move toward the center if only in order to be reelected

Such a president would understand that even if he got all the rich-bashing tax increases he wanted that would have no effect on an avalanching deficit. So he would acknowledge and take action on the government being too big, spending too high, and regulation too complex. And he would implement such a program out of political advantage, his own reputation, and some concern for the well-being of the country. Of course, there would be a sharp disagreement with Republicans about what and how much to change.

Which shows the real hackery of many of Obama's supporters. It's not just that they keep defending Obama as the smartest guy around, its that they're forced to pretend the stimulus saved the US (and it should have been larger damnit!), that there isn't a spending problem, that high tax rates and military cuts alone will satisfy the budget problems, that the president really can twart congress and the courts if he really really wants to, that people complaining about greater police powers (TSA, speech limitations, war on Terror, war on drugs) are just paranoid and unpatriotic.

That's not to say that if Obama wins the dance won't reverse, but it is important to note it. And to note the reversal from the previous "Party Line."

And the media is doing it's best to pretend that the massive debt crisis just isn't going to happen.

The whole core of their behavior really is "We're smarter and more compassionate than you therefore we deserve to run things and if you deny us our power or money then you must be stupid or evil."

As Ace explains.

Democrats are just a collection of rent-seekers, beak-dippers, and vig-skimmers, who have convinced themselves that it is not only acceptable that they should collect rents, dip their beaks, and collect a vig on everyone else's transactions, but that to deny them such rents, dippings, and vigs constitutes the most hateful, vicious, and fundamentally un-American behavior they can conceive.

If a guy comes over to your business and begins demanding that you do x and pay y tithe to group z, and is all up in your grill about it, you'd probably either call the cops or spare them the trouble by getting out your gun and telling the miscreant to remove himself from your site or be removed from the earth.

But these cats get a degree in Public Policy and worm themselves up the Media-Distributionist Complex, and suddenly that behavior isn't merely legal -- now they've got the coercive force of the government on their side.

And that's why they don't see a problem with the coercive power of the government. Like a prohibitionist waxing about how banning the "devil rum" or the "devil weed" can't ever see the law going after the vices he likes, people that plan to abuse the coercive power of the state hardly ever consider such vast power being used against them.

And they also just don't get that --

1. Even if they were smart, you weren't looking for a new boss.

2. You don't accept that they're that smart. In fact, you think they're kind of douchey faegelas who don't know shit about shat.

3. You also reject the weird premise that a certain type of ability, like intelligence, naturally makes one party a master and a complete stranger a slave. Why shouldn't we just say that physical might creates such a relationship, as was true for the first 10,000 years of human existence?

If your idea or charity comes via the barrel of a gun, then you're a thief and a thug, if it comes from the barrel of someone else's gun then you're a mobster, but if that gun is in the hands of a policeman well... then you're a politician.

Just consider that "Anti-Gun" people are perfectly satisfied by using armed agents of the state enact their confiscatory dreams. And then you realize their problem is not that arms exist, but who has them. That's a similar situation the "Anti-rich" Democrats have with the wealthy. Really they don't mind the rich, just as long as they're the "right kind."

Here's some more on the handouts, payouts, and bailouts.

When President Obama promised "no more bailouts, no more handouts" in his State of the Union address, and declared "it's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom," he was either prescribing a total reversal of his current industrial policy, or he was once again using words to mean something they've never meant before.

Get ready for the whiplash...

When liberals speak of "fairness," conservatives tend to hear "redistribution" and "welfare," but Obama's fairness talk is not just code for liberal class warfare. He's also trying to tap into a broad sense that right now, the game is rigged -- that the insiders get special treatment and regular folks get short shrift. This is a real problem, and it's prudent to tap into this dissatisfaction. It's too bad all his policies just rig the game even more.

Obama opened his discussion on industrial policy Tuesday night by bragging about how the taxpayer bailouts of Detroit had helped put General Motors "back on top as the world's number one automaker." In other words, if the government stacks the deck sufficiently in favor of one huge, politically connected corporation, that corporation can beat other, huge, less politically connected corporations.

Then Obama promised, "What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries." The meaning was clear: With enough handouts, enough bailouts, enough mandates, government can prop up all sorts of manufacturing corporations.

Remember, might makes right if it's coming via a authorized monopoly in coercive violence, and since its for the greater good why not whet the beaks of those making sure things role along smoothly. The people's work is thirsty work.

Via Glenn Reynolds ho says "He’s only against handouts to the wrong people."

Rich or poor, play along and you'll get prizes, don't and you'll pay for them

Oh, Canada

2012-01-25T18:31:00.001-05:00

So pro rights people are trying to scrap the Long Guns registry up in Canada.

Now some content that sure the registry ran massively over budget but at least it tracked if a gun used in a crime came from a registered owner, except... it didn't:

Please note,” Statistics Canada wrote in response to an access to information request filed by the National Firearms Association, “that the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) survey does not collect information on licensing of either guns or gun owners related to the incidents of violent crime reported by police.” Nor does StatsCan’s annual homicide survey “collect information on the registration status of the firearm used to commit a homicide.

This raises the question: Why did it take so long for the government to begin ridding Canada of the horribly expensive, unjustifiably intrusive federal gun registry? If no one in Ottawa had any systematic way of tracking whether or not Canadians suspected of committing a violent gun crime were licensed to own a gun and had registered the gun being used, then they had no way of knowing whether registration and licensing were having a positive impact on crime.

So instead of verifying that the registration scheme was even serving it's indented purpose... they just ran on "faith", as Joe Huffman puts it.

So if the Canadian government is not even tracking if their registration scheme reduces crime what are they doing with it?

Banning 22's that look like AK-47's.

Yeah... kind of sounds like the registration scheme didn't work as advertised and is now being used to well... confiscate weapons.

Say it again: Registration leads to confiscation.

So many, many Rubes.

2012-01-24T17:16:00.001-05:00

Keystone XL showing how we're all rubes.

Well, at least the Greens can sleep soundly knowing they helped line Warren Buffet's pockets and increased Obama's power. Then again... they seem pretty okay with wealth and power as long as it's in the "right" hands.

Meh, here have some good news.

Edit: Well, well. Disheartening articles, certain staffers with sitting in the First Lady's box seat for the SOTU. Looks like this story has some bite to it.

Eat the Rich?

2012-01-22T15:19:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting test: if you're dealing with someone going on about wealth redistribution, how the rich have too much power, about the need for social justice, how the poor need the same standard of living, that healthcare is a right that the rich are too greedy to pay their fair share.

So you have someone doing class based agitation, about how the rich get preferential treatment in this nation and how it needs to be fixed.

Now you can always ask them how much they make and followup with why they're not already doing their fair share.

Well, here's another thing, ask them about Conceal Carry. Do they support May Issue or Shall Issue? What to they think of "sensible gun control" laws?

If they're all for it, point to places like New York City, Boston, San Francisco, Baltimore, New Jersey or anywhere that has discretionary issue, explain how in those places the only people that can legally carry are the politically connected, and those wealthy enough to buy political connections.

Ask them if they're still okay with an organized governmental plan to keep the poor from being armed. If they're an NYC or Boston or NJ resident tell them to just try to get a carry permit.

Then it's pretty simple to ask: How can someone so sensitive to wealth inequality be okay to a system so fundamentally unfair and biased towards the powerful?

There's two options. 1) This equality is all a scam on their part to ensure that the proletariat is satisfied with bread and circuses while solidifying their own position in a type of new aristocracy.

Or 2) They honestly think the poor are due equality by the force of the state in everything but self defense and firearms rights. Because, well, the poor can't handle or don't need to be armed. Which betrays a paternalistic superior mentality of an enlightened class that oversees the poor as some sort of benevolent caretaker.

This is also why I'm not persuaded by the argument of "Every other civilized nation does X, but the US. The US should do it too!"

Again I wouldn't want to take egalitarian advice from country that bans firearms save for toys for the rich (UK) or that reduces carry to those that are politically connected, celebrities, or the wealthy (Germany, Italy).

Again if you think Canada is morally superior because they have Socialized Healthcare I'm free do thing they're morally inferior because of how corrupt and elitist their Authorization to Carry system is. For example the ATC has provisions to be authorized to a woman who is fearful of reprisals by her ex husband. But no ATC has ever been issued for that reason. Classy.

You'll note that many of the same people that complain about the police throwing around terms like "pigs" are just fine and dandy with the police having the arbitrary power to decide who can and cannot have guns, or failing that being the only people allowed to have them.

Snow.

2012-01-21T17:12:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's precipitation came down in a bit of semi-melty freezing ice.

Did make it so it came up off the driveway in clumps.

Though having lived in Buffalo for 6 years I can't complain about the snows here.

Still, I'm glad I didn't have anywhere to go today, and that I have a garage.

Stay warm, mulled cider with a splash of rum can do wonders.

Not Dead.

2012-01-19T17:49:00.001-05:00

Just not feeling so hot the last couple days. Feeling better now.

Good Time Blogmeet.

2012-01-15T23:05:00.000-05:00

Despite not going to the Indy 1500 show this weekend.
(I didn't have any pressing gunnie needs and it seemed a bit crowed this time around)

I did however go to the Blogmeet today at the BrewPub. Food was so good it managed to serve as late lunch and early dinner.

Good times was had, talking about old time technical books, radios, guns, and the like.

Here's Brigid's report and Roberta's

Can add a new blog to the "blogger's I've met" list: Mr. Engineering Johnson at his first attendance.

I also managed to snag Tam's old 4th ed Mauser Military Rifles of the World. And got an impromptu lesson in volley-fire.

Sides and their difference.

2012-01-15T13:31:00.000-05:00

You can tell alot by how someone reacts to criticism.

CargoSquid looks at the claim that the pro-gun "candle and gun" vigils were mocking victims.

And he does it via evidence. Going over a dozen posts and more comments he finds... nothing.

Wow. All that posting. Not a single attack against victims or gun control activists. Not even a harsh word. Or snark. Which, if you are familiar with gun bloggers is a freaking miracle.

Let's see.....Maybe its hidden in Weer'd comments...

Nope. Just more links to more memorials. And links to the CSGV on Facebook to show the reactions of the gun control fanatics. THE OVERWHELMING CONSISTENT THREAD IS THE TOTAL LACK OF ANY MENTION OF YOU. You appear to be upset because we ignored you, mostly, and joined "your" vigil, and did it our way.

Joan Peterson...without proof, without evidence, you slander good people. And yet you call us shameless? You have the outright, shameless, unmitigated, GALL to insult people that actually JOINED you in honoring victims of violence BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO IT IN YOUR APPROVED MANNER?

There you have it. Joan was angry that people had the gall to take her idea, do it their way, and then not mention her. It would make sense that she would decry people honoring victims in the wrong way. She certainly decrys the wrong type of victim.

Lingore also looks on another difference.

Joan (gun controler): No comments will be published from pro gun activists on this post.
Jenniver (gun rights activist): I know you won’t publish this. That’s fine. It’s your space. But I give you my word that I won’t censor you on my blog. And I do plan to publish my comment on my blog. Probably repeatedly.

What I find interesting is how much the candle and gun thing touched a nerve. And it didn't come from high in the "Gun Lobby", it was something that Weerd thought would be neat to do.

Meanwhile high up people in the Gun Control lobby have decided to make this one of their key fights.

Quote of the Day: Weerd Beard

2012-01-14T23:00:00.000-05:00

It's a long one (and part of a larger post), but real good.

One of the most compelling reason to buy a gun myself was when I realized that guns save far more lives than they take. I’m Glad Joan is not only linking me, but quoting me on her blog which previously would never acknowledge such events. Defensive gun uses are generally the elephant in the room for the Anti-Rights types, as in an argument where pro-gun people can only frame their gun ownership in terms of sport and collecting, that argument will ALWAYS lose, as no matter what as the negatives will be the abuses of guns in society, and the positives will be fun-and-games. No rational person will chose the gun. But if you frame guns as a tool to protect innocent lives and resist tyranny, and cite the number of lives SAVED by personal firearms EVERYDAY, and compare that with the innocent lives harmed by them, well there is no contest.

Thank you Weerd. On Thursday I was trying to explain how important self defense was for Gun Rights. But you've said it much better and much more succinctly.

Go read the rest of Weerd's post and see what we're up against. And how they lie and want to render people helpless, tell them it's for their own good, and then profit politically when the people they've disarmed are subsequently victimized.

Right to Keep AND Bear Arms.

2012-01-12T18:58:00.001-05:00

The spread of Shall Issue Conceal Carry to the vast majority of the United States gives a major leg up on Second Ammendment Issues.

Or to be more accurate, it removes a huge hurdle in talking about and justifying RKBA. Take a country with extremely restrictive carry issue like Canada or pre-97 England or so forth.

In those countries (at the time) handguns were/are legal. But the common person could not carry them for self defense. Thus a primary use was eliminated. Hell Canada has a limitation on how short a handgun's barrel can be. Can't have something that someone might try to conceal.

And when the anti's reared their heads, and took advantage of blood in the streets they went "Well why do you need X? X is dangerous! It's only purpose is to murder!"

And answers like sport, hunting, collectiability, and "Because I damn well want to you intrusive harpy," are all valid. Though the Anti's will retort with "But it's designed to kill! It's a weapon!"

And if the State has banned carry and self defense, then well, the subject cannot reply with: "So what? Damn straight X is designed to kill(while also be carried on a person's body). Not all killing is wrong or even illegal."

Removing self defense turns firearms from a right to just a hobby. Yes, most of us gunnies consider them both. However, it's far far easier to regulate out of existence (or regulate down to just the "right people") a hobby than it is a right.

Especially if the hobby can be demonized as dangerous and fringe, instead of being a constitutional right.

This is why the Anti's used to say they supported "Hunters and Sportsmen" but not those Assault Weapons and High Capacity Clips. But now to now where they're forced to give lip service to self defense. It shows how far we've gone that the anti's have to say things like that.

Then again they used to say a lot of things. Miguel documents a bit of the history of the Brady Campaign or as they used to be called the National Council to Ban Handguns.

The goal's never changed though. As Miguel quotes their three step plan: 1 hamper sales of new handguns as much as possible, 2 get a national registry, 3 "make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition totally illegal".

And they know that expanding gun ownership is death to their organization, because the more people that are exposed to firearms the more their lies are exposed.

But a registry won't ever be abused! Read the rest of Miguel's post to get a reminder of ow the Anti's work.

It also helps that there's very plain text in the Constitution backing up our stance.

And some more info on the Second Amendment via Linoge.

The US is standing as a country where nearly 3/4 of the population is able to purchase and carry a handgun for no other reason than they want to.

And the State (assuming fees, training and non felon which is a whole other ball of wax) is forced to oblige them. And in many locations this has been going on for decades. And more and more states are becoming Shall Issue. Oh and there was no blood in the streets, no spike in crime.

I'm not sure the Anti's are able to comprehend the magnitude of what that means for their cause.

In most of the US the common citizen can go about their day armed, if they so wish, and use said arm to defend themselves. No being part of the "special class" or needing to "know a guy". Any law-abiding citizen. 41 States, 70% of the population.

That also underscores how fundamentally unfair May Issue regimes are. Because their whole reason for existence is to prohibit rights to otherwise qualified petitioners. If New York or New Jersey or Massachusetts or California or Canada or Italy really cared about equality before the law you'd think they'd treat all applicants for conceal carry equally, no?

Dumb Gun laws know no Borders.

2012-01-11T19:43:00.002-05:00

So up in Canada the RMCP has decided to spend what is potentially the last days of their long gun registry by ramping up the spite.

And going after those eeeevilll "AK-Variants". And by Variants I mean 22 caliber long rifle plinkers styled after an AK47.

A gun registry being abused by petty bureaucrats to enact confiscation? Say it ain't so!

By changing classifications now, the RCMP will retain records of these owners even after the long-gun-registry data is destroyed.

Friedman says activist bureaucrats at the Canadian Firearms Program are using what little time remains to move more firearms into the restricted and prohibited categories.

"Remember, once the gun registry is eliminated, the RCMP will lose their ability to identify, target and harass law-abiding owners on non-restricted firearms," he said. "They only took notice of (the AP80) when the gun registry is in its death throes."

Spite. If you give agents of the state a power they WILL abuse it.

And showing how dumb such regs are. The VZ 58 is not Restricted.

Yeah it's not considered an AK variant! Yes, that is true. As the VZ58 has a different action mechanism and is made in a different country.

But functionally it fires a 7.62 by 39. Same caliber as the AK47, which puts it a lot closer to the Ak47 than the 22lr AP80 which the RCMP has seen fit to ban.

Oh and for some irony look at this on Armi Jager (the AM80's mfg) wiki page

The gun manufacturer was active since the early 1960s, manufacturing semi-automatic rimfire sporting rifles and replica "Western" revolvers. Later it evolved to rimfire and small-caliber centerfire (.32 ACP) firearms patterned after the look of military rifles which at the time were difficult or illegal to own for civilians in Italy.

Of course the Canadian government said nuts to that and decided to ban 'em anyway.

Via Uncle

Neo Puritians

2012-01-11T17:54:00.000-05:00

Somewhere somehow someone is enjoying something fun that might be a vice.

And Bloomberg shows that anti's never saw a prohibition they didn't want to foist on the rest of us.

Bloomberg has a dream, a dream of a New York City with less booze.

One of the goals listed in the “request for proposal” document to community groups is “reducing alcohol retail outlet (e.g. bar, corner store) density and illegal alcohol,” the document states.

And how will he accomplish that dream?

The city Health Department’s far-reaching Partnership for a Healthier New York City initiatives proposes to slash the number of establishments in the city that sell booze.

Community “transformation” grants provided under President Obama’s health-care law would help bankroll the effort.

This is my shocked face.

So much for my body my choice eh? Well we know the anti's don't believe it's your choice on how you can defend yourself or what chemicals you put in your body or what you eat (yes I'm pointing to both of the Paternalist Statist Parties).

And speaking of nannying bans, here's a ban for smoking within your own apartment (regardless of what your landlord says), or even out on the balcony.

But only if you're smoking tobacco.

These kinds of prohibitions are a bizarre form of redlining, one that bans poor people (who, in Marin, are more likely to be renters) from an activity in which richer people can freely engage. More than that, this kind of policing strikes me as hypocritical when it comes from the very same people who routinely lambast conservatives for trying to impose control over people’s private lives.

It's for their own good you see. Like how Bloomberg's alcohol crusade won't affect the well to do in New York. Just like how the well to do in NYC can get handgun permits.

The net result is that Marin’s poor people are barred from engaging in Dangerous Behavior “A” because it’s associated with capitalism (i.e., Big Tobacco) while they’re free, under Marin ordinances, if not under criminal law, to engage in equally Dangerous Behavior “B”, because it comes under the pop culture/counter culture rubric. Likewise, third parties in Marin will now be relieved from the burden of inhaling politically incorrect second-hand tobacco smoke, but must still suffer the hardship of inhaling hip, politically approved second-hand marijuana smoke.

Stories such as this one remind me that one of the best things about leaving liberalism behind is the fact that I no longer have to grapple daily with the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy that is an integral part of the “liberal” mindset.

It is hard to tell what is and what is not in the Party's favor.

What is wealth?

2012-01-11T17:47:00.000-05:00

I haven't linked to Victor Davis Hanson in a while.

I'll fix that.
VDH talks about how power and knowledge has indeed trickled down in ways that are frankly amazing.

In short,we live in an unacknowledged age in which a poor man with a laptop who taps into a free signal at Starbucks has more information at his fingertips than did the Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford just forty years ago.

Or a world where obesity is the number one health ailment of the poor as he mentions in the intimidatingly subsequent section as he comes to his conclusion.

Read it all, especially the end.

"Why we win" -Robb Allen

2012-01-09T17:40:00.000-05:00

Via Robb here's A girl and her Gun with an Open letter to the Antis.

Just read it all. I also realized the double meaning in Robb's line. Not only does it talk of the mechanism as to why the gunnie community wins, but it's also the reason why the gunnie community wants to win.

This is why it's so important to remember that as a gunnie you are an ambassador, and the benefits of helping those that want in on the community.

What can you offer? What can the anti's offer?

Take someone to the range, teach someone about firearms safety, explain why you carry. This is how we win. This is why we win.

Candle and Gun.

2012-01-08T15:07:00.001-05:00

Here's Weerd's post of the big, big roundup.

And also via Weer'd is Brigid's masterful tale.

Though the brevity and clarity of A Girl and Her Gun's tale is also worth a read.

But really go to Weerd's link and look at them all.

Fire and Firearms.

2012-01-08T00:00:00.002-05:00

So Weer'd has come up with a great idea to really show how you can prevent violence.

Light a candle and well...

So on January 8th I ask everybody to post a picture of a lit candle and you carry gun. Because lit candles don’t do a whole lot but cast a meager amount of light…but a loaded gun in the hands of lawful citizens can do wonders to protect innocent lives from harm.

This is a really good idea. There's just something about the composition, that's the source of it's resonance.

Both a gun and a candle are tools. Some tools are designed to kill things others are designed to burn things. That does not make them evil; they are inanimate objects. The morality lies in the user. And sometimes you need to burn something, and sometimes the moral choice is to kill.

A 21st century story.

2012-01-07T17:34:00.001-05:00

So calls Steven Green in this episode of Trifecta on the University of Wisconsin and a certain Firefly poster.

Given how things are going looking to the Browncoats and their story gives some melancholic solace.

As Mr. A shows, it's never, ever enough. No matter who goes up against the(ir) party, they will always be a counter revolutionary extremist. Always.

And here's the quote Green mentions at the end:

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.

Another chat with Mr. A

2012-01-06T22:58:00.000-05:00

So was talking with Mr. A again, and he was pushing for a full single-payer socialized healthcare system. Standard points about the superior altruistic morality of government agents versus private corporations, the obligation of taxpayers to support the less fortunate, the requirement of government to step in a "life and death" field, and the greater efficiency of a streamlined system instead of the public-private hodgepodge we have know.

And he was boastful about Obamacare being a stepping stone to his dream, right aver dismissing "Faux News" as giving paranoid talking points... such as that one. When I pointed out to him that food and housing are also required to live and are also publicly and privately funded, he dismissed that by saying healthcare was special. And the question of why public housing is so much poorer than private housing fell on deaf ears.

Instead, he gave the example of prisons and how privatizing prisons is an immoral act. Of course, the act of legal incarceration has to be done through governmental bodies. When it's done via private motivation it's kidnapping. Where it is still legal in the US to pick a doctor of your own choosing and pay them for their time. But I'll let his equating of medical care and incarceration speak for itself.

A friend of his also spoke up against "privatized" food production by noting the poor quality of fast food and the obesity epidemic. He's got me there. If there's anything socialized, commune, farming is known for it's a lack of obesity.

Mr. A also presented an argument of cost, where soup kitchens, restaurants, and farms have a far lower entry cost than medical fields, and thus the medical field has to be taken over by the government. I'll let you consider a pharma giant like Merc versus an agra-giant like ADM. Or a large industrialized stockyard versus a hospital. Or a local chiropractor and a convenience store. But there's too big to fail right here.

And don't you love a defense of reducing market barriers and increasing competition that depends on um... closing the market via a compulsory monopoly with no competition and no choice.

Why yes, he did screech about health care companies cheating people out of every nickle and dime to reduce costs and how they hurt the little guy by being giant monopolistic institutions that people had no power against. His solution? A bigger total monopoly with the full punitive power of the state to force compliance, one that will be more efficient and reduce costs to the taxpayer.

Lovely.

But don't worry if healthcare becomes single payer where all medical equipment, drugs, and consumables are paid for by the government and can only be sold to the government. If that happens the medical industry will become as streamlined and cost effecient as other single payer industries such as military procurement.

Defense contractors can only sell their wares to the US government and just look at how slim and trim our defense spending is.

Quote of the day: Divemedic

2012-01-04T18:06:00.000-05:00

Divemedic has this comment on a post of Robb Allen's about the logic of the Anti's

I think that in order to understand them, you need to look at things from their perspective. They believe that criminals are just like the rest of us, but have simply been pushed into making a rash decision. If guns are removed from the equation, then the person will not have the opportunity to act before they come to their senses.

This is where the nonsense about waiting periods, victim disarmament zones, and virtually every other law comes from- even why they are so soft on convicted criminals. In their eyes, everyone is a potential criminal, all we need is a moment of lost self control.

Underscoring that mentality of everyone is a criminal, everyone is a child, the masses can't rule themselves... Illinois has just started a drain cleaner registry. You see, stores now have to keep a log of who buys these "dangerous chemicals" and demand that purchases provide valid ID. Because that will somehow reduce "cleaner-crime".

Once again we're seeing that government ID is required do to everything but vote.

RobertaX also points out that this idea of being a nation of children/serfs is antithetical to American culture in Americans: An Armed Rabble

Cultural shifts: A long running Experiment

2012-01-03T21:22:00.000-05:00

Weer'd talks about the cultural change in firearms ownership.
Basically about the demise of the "Fudd" and the rise of defensive carry culture. Americans are putting the Bear back in "Right to Keep and Bear Arms."

Couple that with RobertaX who shows that this has been a long running "experiment" in some places.

It is funny, and sad, to see hand-wringing over "blood in the streets" especially as Roberta points out when it's in a jurisdiction that has been Shall issue since before either the perp or the defensive shooter were borne.

We already know the outcome: there aren't any "shoot-outs in canned goods" and 99.99999% of the time, the only red on the floor is from a dropped jar of tomato-based product (or hot sauce). Your worst fears have not come true -- because most people, yes, even those of us who had a State Police background check, got fingerprinted and paid for a License To Carry Handgun, most people are good and decent; most people are reluctant to take human life.

I was up in Buffalo for the New Year and went shooting with my friends, one of which was trying out her very first gun. Even in New York State we're making inroads.

Also speaking of results from the "cultural experiment" I was in a chat talking about 3D printing and other such future tech and I pointed out how that stuff was making Gun Control a dead letter.

It promoted this rather candid response: "giving Dutch people firearms would help the overpopulation problem rather quickly". And yes, these quotes are all from a Dutchman.

I pointed out that us violent Americans can handle having more guns and more people carrying them without more murder.

He agree with the stats but went to a cultural defense. Somehow his people were different: "I think the problem mainly would be with arming them now. I mean The Netherlands has been a country without widespread firearms ownership since 1918."

To be fair he also wondered if the average Dutch citizen can handle driving a car and voting: "I am not sure anyone here can handle a car if I see them drive at times. But no, I don't trust most of the population here, if they vote for those idiots." So there's at least a uniform sense of elitism.

Here's the interesting part. He says he's not against "the ownership in general" but thinks that liberalization would require a "slow introduction" to manage the "problem of reintroducing them".

Consider where this has placed a European Anti. They're reduced to going Well sure you violent and uncouth Americans can handle having and carrying guns, but our peaceful and gentile ~~citizens~~ subjects need to slowly be weaned back or else there'll be blood in the streets.

Well, it's that or plug their hands in their ears and completely ignore reality.

Kimber "Quality" customer service.

2012-01-02T18:00:00.000-05:00

Well two weeks later and no word from Kimber, but I did get a padded envelope.

No return address, no note inside, but there was a replacement for the the broken part.

It's the same MIM cast stuff, but they've been doing that a while. Even my old safeties that had been working for years were of that.

Maybe the broken one was of a bad batch. No quality control is perfect, but there does seem to be a disturbing pattern and trend with Kimber. I'll run some ammunition though my alternate 1911 with the new safety and see if it breaks.

At least testing to the previous part's longevity won't be hard as it was only around 300 rounds.

Though it will take more than that to have me trust the part in a carry piece.

The New York Times, much, much smarter than you.

2011-12-28T21:48:00.000-05:00

So you have a segment of the population that commits crime at a rate far less than the general population. You'd normally consider said segment to be responsible and relatively law-abiding.

From Gleen's link Robert VerBruggen does some basic math that the NYT couldn't be bothered with.

North Carolina has a statewide murder rate of about 5 per 100,000. Even without counting manslaughter, that’s 25 murders committed per 100,000 North Carolinians every five years. There are about 230,000 valid concealed-carry permits in North Carolina, so by pure chance, you’d expect these folks to be responsible for nearly 60 murders over five years. And yet only ten of them committed murder or manslaughter. Instead of “rais[ing] questions,” the Times has demonstrated yet again that permit holders are more peaceful than the general population.

That's New York Times. They can use innumeracy to justify their paranoid hand wringing and calls to restrict civil rights of people that have committed no crime.

Consider that you have a mainstream and "respected" press organ taking the actions of 0.08% and blaming the whole group. Interesting bigotry at work.

So they're not just bad at math, but monstrous too! They consider the worst of the law abiding while excusing the actions of the criminals.

And speaking of monstrous siding with criminals over others. Joan Peterson makes excuses for a man willing to commit armed robbery but casts a suspicious eye on the man that stopped him.

Bob Owens also reminds us that just because one area the news reports on is completely bunk doesn't mean the rest can't be too.

What would happen if all of the stories in the Times – or the Washington Post, or your local newspaper or television news – were subject to the sort of expert scrutiny as this Luo article, in a given day or week? What percentage of reporting would we discover is marginally biased, seriously slanted, or even fabricated?

I strongly suspect that the resulting scrutiny would reveal a dark and ugly secret that the media isn’t remotely interested in reporting the news, it’s interested in shaping the news, and your perception of the world.

...

If you doubt this, please tell me how much you’ve read (for example) about Operation Fast and Furious outside of the blogosphere, and ask yourself if a Republican government would still be standing after orchestrating crimes that left hundreds of citizens of a neighboring state dead.

Ah yes, Eric Holder. Guess who is using increased police deaths as an excuse for more gun control?

Carry Your Damn Guns.

2011-12-27T23:33:00.000-05:00

If you think you'll only carry when "things are dangerous" you're deluding yourself.

If you think a situation is risky then you shouldn't go there.

And if you think it's paranoid to always be strapped, like say when going to the grocery store well... from Jay G here's a story that proves otherwise.

Man comes into the store at 6pm and forces an employee into a back room as part of a robbery (and it's never a good sign when a goblin moves his intended victims). Fortunately, one of her coworkers was armed and ended the situation. Nothing reduces repeat offenses quite like a lethal shot to the head.

This has resonance with me because this is one of 2 Krogers near where I live. I've been there several times. Though never disarmed.

Don't think that crime is something that happens to other people. It can happen at work, at the store, when doing errands.

That's why one needs to be prepared materially, physically, and mentally.

Papers Please

2011-12-24T22:54:00.000-05:00

A roundup on the administration's attack on voter ID laws (for some reason South Carolina and Texas can't do it, but states like Indiana can) from Glenn Reynolds.

Remember it's racist to show your ID to vote but not to buy a gun (and let's not even get into background checks.

Why yes, Eric Holder is behind this, but if you want to listen to his explanation then you'd better pony of an ID to get into the event.

Only Ones, Dead Rats, Prostitute Police Taxis, and A European perspective.

2011-12-21T19:05:00.000-05:00

Via Jay G we have some grand creepy "only one" abuse.

BOSTON (CBS) – An MBTA police officer is suspended after he was caught mailing dead rats. The I-Team has learned it stemmed from possible involvement with prostitutes.

Why? Well the rats were sent to a John that didn't pay. And the officer's involvement? Well he was using his police cruiser to provide escort for the... escorts.

And Jay G does title his post: Remember, Only the Police Should Have Guns...

I was talking with someone, mentioned this story, and got this response: "Stories like this make me glad our police aren't armed."

Now she lives in a European nation where handguns are illegal, so are semi-auto rifles, and the rest shotguns and bolts are the toys of the rich.

There's almost a bit of honesty in the idea that everyone should be disarmed. Not just the "proles" but also the agents of the state.

Of course it's a fantasy, because there will always be some agents of the state (special police or military) that are armed with guns. The whole threat of force is what makes a person comply with the state. And then there's those that will simply smuggle or make their own guns.

But even if you suppose a state somehow existed with no guns at all what would you have?
Well... look to the past. Violence and crime are not new.

In fact removing guns turns violence into the field of muscle and vigor. Now age and physical fitness and size become paramount.

So there's still violence, and it becomes truly Darwinian where the smaller and weaker and older have far far less power against the younger and stronger. But at least it won't be any "Gun Death".

Hey Look a Cliff and everyone's jumping!

2011-12-20T20:25:00.001-05:00

So Unc, JayG. Zercool, and Weer'd have shown off what's in their pockets'.

I figured I might as well join in.

My primary is a full government size 1911 (early TLE II Kimber so not too bad) carried in a DeSantis OWB. Two spare magainzes are on my opposite hip. My backup is a PM45 in pocket carry. DeSantis

In situations where I can't carry my full-size I sometimes carry a 4 inch barrel aluminum frame 1911. That's often a lawn mowing and gardening gun, but more and more I just use the fullsize.

If I can't have something draped over my waist I just carry the Kahr.

And last is my LCP. That's often a jogging or shorts gun. It's when I can't carry anything bigger.

Edit: Thanks for the Chance-lance. If anyone wonders why I have that defensive Kimber aside well look here.

No one's a villain their own eyes.

2011-12-20T18:42:00.000-05:00

But they're oven a victim. Of course it helps to have the New York Times at your back.
You see Holder's a victim. All these challenges for him to explain his actions and turn over documents as ordered by the House of Representatives... it's all for racism.

Never mind why the ATF put thousands of guns into the hands of drug gangs in Mexico, without tracking the weapons and without even informing the Mexican government.

Never mind that the operation resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one US citizen border agent Brian Terry.

Never mind that the ATF has been documented saying they'll use the blood bath resulting from said operation to call for more gun control.

Never mind that there is documentation that the Justice Department and the ATF have lied to Congress about said operation.

Never mind that Holder continues to cover for said operation and stonewall the Congressional investigation.

And never mind that if Holder really did not know about the opeartion it somply raises more questions:

If you didn’t know about Operation Fast and Furious then why aren’t you outraged? Why aren’t you firing those who are responsible for the operation? Why aren’t you cleaning house? Why aren’t you outraged that the people who started this operation haven’t been identified? Why aren’t you outraged that when people found out about Operation Fast and Furious (including your second in command) did nothing to stop it and more importantly did not tell you? I can’t speak for the others, but the fact it appears you don’t care something like this happened bothers me a lot.

Yes, if you look at the idea of limited, representation government.

This is literally agents of the US government involved in a false-flag operation illegally smuggling arms in another nation and then using the result and bloodshed to justify restricting a constitutional right.

And here we have the US Attorney General himself, the head of the United States Justice department stonewalling a congressional investigation and acting like he's the aggrieved party.

There you have it. Racism in America: Asking Democrats about a conspiracy that killed hundreds of Mexican citizens.

Or maybe Racist Realpolitik in America. Because we bitter-clingers couldn't possibly care about those dead people or about rights, no it's all because we were tough on Ashcroft and Gonzales so you're just looking for some tit-for-tat.

This is the lens they see the world through: it's all about race (Gonzales doesn't count because he was a Republican you know) and politics.

Let's give them more power over our lives! I'm sure they won't abuse it.

Kimber "Quality". They can't even make basic parts.

2011-12-18T17:28:00.002-05:00

Well, this is pathetic.

I picked up a Kimber Pro-Carry for my father. He always wanted one, which got more intense when he saw mine.

My father is left handed like me and thus needs and ambidextrous safety.

I've written before about Kimber's issues, but this is the first it's happened to me.

There are a couple methods of retaining the ambidextrous thumb safety on a 1911. There's using a modified sear pin (which I haven't seen). There's extending a paddle out that slides under the right grip. And there's the Kimber/King method of engaging a dovetail on the hammer pin.

I like this latter method the most for it's reliability, ease of installation and removal, and its "clean" look.

I've installed them on both of my 1911's and on my father's full size without a problem.

Then we get to this year. I made the same purchase and install my 4th ambi-safety. On the 27th of November. And today, less than a month later, after a bare 300 rounds we have this:

From another angle:

The safety sheared off right on the shoulder next to the pin.

That's... pathetic.

Comparing with the ambidextrous safeties in my 1911's the parts look very similar but mine have worn a bit and are still going strong. While this new one has broken after just a couple T&E trips to the range.

What's worse is that of the two suppliers that make the ambidextrous safety I like one has reduced its quality to a pathetic joke (Kimber), while the other has a webpage with a dead email, and an invalid phone number for orders (King).

I did manage to get an answering machine on King's other phone number for an actual gun shop. So maybe they're still in business.

I've also sent a charge ticket off to Kimber, but I have my doubts.

Kimber, this is just an unacceptable degradation in quality.

The new Blacklist.

2011-12-17T20:23:00.000-05:00

Paul Tassi talks about the SOPA bill and the sweeping effects it will have.

Why is this? Am I a pirate, who feeds my users stolen content every day and deserves to be slain by a new law like this? Not at all, and this is the fundamental problem with SOPA and other prospective laws like it (Protect IP most recently). . . . The fine print of the law says sites that distribute copyrighted content could be subject to summary censorship, ie Torrent sites and the like. But it also encompasses any sites that LINK to copyrighted content, which is the bomb that blows up any semblance of sense this bill might have had. . . . Watching the House debate this bill yesterday was beyond pathetic. These representatives, if they deserve to be called that, have no idea the amount of power they’re giving the entertainment industry.

Via Glenn Reynolds.

Wow, politicians regulating something they have no idea about that will be intrusive and liberty destroying. How... familiar.

Also from Prof Reynolds, Eris S Raymond has similar thoughts on the familiarity.

It’s a bad bill, all right. It’s a terrible bill – awful from start to finish, idiotic to the core, corruptly pandering to a powerful special-interest group at the cost of everyone else’s liberty.

But I can’t help noticing that a lot of the righteous panic about it is being ginned up by people who were cheerfully on board for the last seventeen or so government power grabs – cap and trade, campaign finance “reform”, the incandescent lightbulb ban, Obamacare, you name it – and I have to wonder…

Don’t these people ever learn? Anything? Do they even listen to themselves?

It’s bizarre and entertaining to hear people who yesterday were all about allegedly benign and intelligent government interventions suddenly discovering that in practice, what they get is stupid and vicious legislation that has been captured by a venal and evil interest group.

Rice-bowls, cannibal pots, and cell phone bans. Well maybe some people will realize that using the power of the state to "make people better" is nothing more than a fantasy covering a bloody nightmare.

Maybe.

But I'm not being too hopeful. No matter what happens, it looks like we'll be stuck with this crap.

Here's Tam showing the few reversals and wins. Asside from the CCW revolution (which is big) the rest of the wins can be counted on one hand.

Scotland: Not anti Gun, not anti knife, but anti freedom

2011-12-16T13:34:00.002-05:00

From Soft Green Glow (via Tam). Scotland's utter descent to madness:

Anyone caught carrying a knife in town and city centres in Scotland in the coming weeks faces a potential four years in prison, under a new crackdown announced today.

The six-week pilot scheme will see cases automatically prosecuted as more serious offences, increasing the length of jail terms available to sheriffs from one year to four.

...

Scotland’s top law officer, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, QC, said the pilot would involve a zero-tolerance approach to the problem. He said: “The public will wish to enjoy the festive period in our towns and cities without fear. The zero-tolerance crackdown should help to deter anyone stupid enough to think about carrying a knife.

Ah yes, live without fear. Because the criminals will surely fall in line if there's just one more law.

And it's not like the public will live in fear of the police. As Phil notes:

What if you buy a knife for someone for Christmas? How do you get it to the car? And what about scissors? You know, for wrapping gifts. What if you need a new pair?

A gun is a tool, so is a knife. And you'll be more likely to use a knife in every day use. Here's something Tam wrote a few days ago that seems prophetic.

Some people get all clutch-the-pearls at the sight of a knife, which strikes me as utterly bizarre. How come H. habilis could see the utility of keeping a sharp rock handy, but the concept seems to elude H. cubiculum? Hardly a day goes by that my pocket knife doesn't see use: opening letters, opening packages, breaking down boxes, trimming loose threads on clothing...

And now Scotland wants to ban basic, basic tools. How's that for "enlightened" for you. Maybe next they'll ban possession of matches and lighters in order to prevent arson and "fire-crime".

Oh yes, there's the beloved "zero-tolerance". Now where have we seen zero-tolerance policies before? Policies where people are convicted on ridiculous charges (like having a cake-knife for *gasp* cake) or for drawing (that is making a picture) of a gun?

Edited: Or a piece of pizza shaped as a gun. Yeah, nice to see Scotland treating its subjects like children.

That's right. Schools.

As we see in Scotland, the antis think of the general population as children. Children that need to be told what to do.

Birthdays

2011-12-15T23:35:00.001-05:00

I can agree with this. My friends can attest to that.

Ron Swanson is amusing. And it's interesting to see a TV show portray an unabashed Libertarian in a positive light.
And he's even trying to reduce the state from the inside... with mixed results.

Shame the show's other characters seem weaker and more annoying. Makes me enjoy the character but be ambivalent towards the show itself.

Also in the poorly remembered words of another Tam "Surprise parties are not seen as wise among my people."

Yeah... that's pretty much New Jersey.

2011-12-15T18:18:00.000-05:00

Ed Driscoll has the link.

For reference I grew up in the "farmers and sub developers" portion of the state.

Horrid, horrid drivers. People everywhere, and some of the most inane gun laws.

But I haven't set foot in NJ for over a decade so I've got that going for me.

Winning? Sure how about some cute hats.

2011-12-13T18:26:00.000-05:00

More evidence of the re-normalization of firearms.

This comic.

Now look at the comments. Nothing negative about guns. In fact there's many anecdotes of stores like "Gowns and Guns" and "Handbags and Handguns", and a universal positive response to them.

And bonus, redneck being used as a compliment.

Then again, this is a comic that celebrates manliness, and not the ironic or overblown-overweening man-child manliness either.

And here's another example of normalization and the difficulty of finding opposition.

Blast from the Past

2011-12-12T17:30:00.000-05:00

Here's something Glenn Reynolds wrote.

Even lamer was the claim that the Sept. 11 attacks were an argument for closing the (nonexistent) "gun show loophole." This claim, made first in a Brady Campaign press release and then in a suspiciously similar op-ed bearing the byline of former Clinton Administration official Eric Holder, just plain flopped. Nobody could be persuaded that Usama bin Laden’s boys would have trouble laying their hands on an AK-47, regardless of what rules govern gun shows.

If the September 11 line wasn't enough, here's the dateline: November 4 2001

Over a decade ago Eric Holder was working hand in glove with gun control organizations to restrict gun rights by using the fears of foreign terrorists buying arms from American gun dealers.

Familiar, eh?

Well, at least Holder wasn't overseeing a plan to send arms to said terrorists back then.

Via Instapundit who remarks "At least."

Here's some more thoughts by Prof. Reynolds.

Properly understood, the gun control movement has always rested on certain essentially religious notions (indeed, though it is little publicized, much of the gun-control movement’s financial and institutional support comes from non-evangelical Protestant denominations). These notions are that violence – even against a criminal – is always bad, that ordinary people are not to be trusted, and that it is best to let the authorities look out for you.

In addition, the movement has always contained a rather strong undercurrent of hostility toward traditional American standards of masculinity, of which it sees the gun as a symbol.

It is here that things seem to have changed the most. Americans have learned that being harmless does not guarantee that they will not be harmed: in fact, it seems that terrorists (like ordinary criminals) actually prefer victims who cannot strike back.

And here's a demotivational that seems quote appropriate: Zombie Free Zone.

Blogmeet

2011-12-12T17:23:00.001-05:00

Welp... I really missed the train here.

Went to a real good blogmeet on Saturday organized by Roberta X

Lucky 13 of us sat around the big round table. Much knife talking, aviation, and engineering... mishaps. Disk-bursts are bad. And while electricity is not actually invisible it will screw you up.

Brigid has pics. And Tam has a good roundup of people that can actually write a summary within 24 hours.

It was great to meetup with OldNFO for the first time. And talk aviation and engines. Also with Uncle Jay who has a great Cuba story.

Mr.B, and Midwest Chick can't escape a mention either. And Old Grouch and the Lurker 1 and 2.

And oh yes... I solved the riddle of the Karl and won a free hat. Warm for winter and customizable for all your alt history and future needs.

It's never Ever enough.

2011-12-09T17:30:00.000-05:00

So some in Japan are mulling over loosening some of their draconian gun laws.

Like reducing a waiting period for a rifle license from a "common sense" 10 years so a "blood in the streets" 5... years. In Japan the way to get a hunting rifle license is if you've had a shot gun license for 10 years. And no civilian handgun ownership at all, and no self defense or carry, and the expected storage and capacitance laws.

But these fairly mild changes... aimed and reducing crop damage due to animals are drawing some ire.

The comments are also illustrative. Runs from "nobody needs a gun" to "penis-penis-penis" to "gun owners are cowards and sociopaths - real men defend themselves with knives" to "hunting is a crime" to "civilized countries realize that guns only hurt people" to "I'm so glad to be in a country with no crime" to "You need NO freedom to..." to "a gun won't address those fears nearly as well as a good therapist" to "Hurr-hurr-Americans" to "If you have a gun you *will* kill yourself or someone else" and of course "But generally speaking I agree with the posters that keeping guns out of the hands of the general populace in Japan is for the best."

Ah, the special kind of arrogance that it takes to look at a population and go "Yes, one must keep the firearms and firewater out of the hands of the savage ~~red~~yellow-man, it's for the best."

Their rage is based on the idea that Japan has low-crime because it has draconian gun laws and thus low "gun death". Thus the idea that any loosening of gun rights would result in blood in the streets. Hmm... sounds so familiar.

Though you gotta love people who see the proposal of reducing the waiting period to own a rifle reduced from 10 years to 5 years to be unreasonable. As one of the sensible commenters pointed out that the people on the waiting list already have a shotgun permit so it's not rapidly increasing the total number of gun owners (the horror if it were!).

And then you have the "I had to run the gauntlet so do the rest of you" gun owner.
Special bonus for Fudd-ism.

I have a Japanese gun licence and hunting licence. I think the current system is fine. It is longwinded and quite expensive, but this tends to ensure only serious people can be bothered to go through with it. Getting a gun on a whim here is just not possible. In rural communities, the local deer and boar populations are causing a lot of damage. With the aging hunter population and the unwillingness of younger people to take up hunting, this problem is only going to get worse... I seriously doubt relaxing the current laws would encourage many extra would-be hunters from taking up hunting. The lack of gun ownership/hunters isn't down to the current law; it's due to people increasingly being out of touch with the nature around them and the ease of popping to the supermarket.

Get that? Only serious people can be bothered. Sure there's a demographic shortage of hunters, but somehow the idea of it being a decades long process with repeat mandatory safety lectures *isn't* a restrictor on potential hunters.

I will give one of the commenters a bit of honesty. He wants guns totally banned from Japan, not just among the "serfs" but also among the government. Police and all.

There's also some fine ignorance on display and strong naivetee. Apparently, US gun laws are monolithically uniform and NYC has Wal-Mart giving AK15's to toddlers. Mexico and Columbia and South Africa all have loose gun laws just like the US. All civilized nations have gun laws on par with Japan (somebody tell Canada and Finland and Switzerland and hell Italy). Heck compared to Japan, Australia is an easy country to get arms. As for the naivete, well remember you can always outrun a man with a knife, and if you give the criminal what he wants you won't ever be hurt.

What all this does show is that nothing, *nothing* is enough for the anti's. 10 years to get a rifle? Too short. Swords (as much a part of Japanese culture as British) are just as banned as guns over there as they are in England. The comemnters even talked about knife crime and Japan's "slashing sprees" and how knives need to be looked at.

There's also the old gun-death chestnut specifically that suicide by a firearm is specifically worse than other types of suicide. And was cited by why the Swiss shouldn't be armed.

There's also an element of spite. (Some good old US do-gooder spite can be found here). They, specifically and emotionally, recoil at the idea of making things a bit easier for a gun owner in any way shape or form.

It is NEVER enough for these folks.

Via Unc

And that's enough happy talk.

2011-12-08T19:45:00.001-05:00

Here have some doom.

Watch the whole thing, down to the manufacturing jobs that cannot be filled. High unemployment and a labor shortage. And then the demographics. In Alabama 1/3 of their skilled workforce is over 55.

And then remember that something like this is tossed around by all the "smart" people as a big chuckle.

I do have a graduate degree, but in engineering. I got a job in the field and I'm no longer in debt, not even my car. I also don't look down on "hand workers" given my parents are truckers and have had jobs ranging from construction to real estate to farming.

I also never thought I was entitled to a job or that I could coast to a degree or that I was "better". I was also only able to afford college (remember the no debt thing) by scholarship, work, and the sacrifices my parents made for me. Which is a debt that I cannot truly repay but will gladly bear.

Via Carteach0

Winning? (Part Whatever II)

2011-12-08T19:13:00.001-05:00

As some can guess, I got back from Buffalo and have been thinking about it some.

NYS laws for handguns are quite hideous. CCW (which is may issue and often comes with target only or hunting limits) is required to even posses a handgun let alone carry. There is no reciprocity and no non-resident permits. There's also no person to person sales and the requirement for a purchase slip from the state for each handgun bought.

It's a system that quite handily pushes aside anyone with a casual interest or from out of state.

Frankly, I'm amazed it's even legal in New York to rent a handgun. Still people are going through the process. Which at least in western New York, even in Buffalo, is getting faster and somewhat easier.

I am seeing an attitude change where even in mixed company with people who don't shoot and have never touched a gun, seeing ammunition and talking about firearms does not cause a rote gun control response.

I'm thinking that maybe the gun control movement has a generational divide. Or maybe firearms are renormalizing into the culture. The conceal carry change has been huge and it could be spreading. People stuck in May Issue states can see what it's like in Shall issue states and despite the anti's claims the streets haven't yet run red with blood.

And as bad as the state is, NYC is far far worse. Permits that are home-only, carry restricted to friends of city hall, and limit of one gun purchase every 90 days regardless of type.

Edit: And before I forget here's a post Unc's that also got me thinking along those lines. 47% of US households own a gun. And a post of Jay G's on *Another* Compact Single Stack 9

From the standpoint of someone who grew up in the late 1980s and came of carrying age in the bad ol' Clinton years, it is nothing short of amazing to see so many guns dedicated to concealed carry now. Back when I first got my permit in 1994, we had the J-frame, the Detective Special, Baby Brownings, and the Makarov for small guns, and not much more. Now the options are staggering, as are the number of states in which one can legally tote them...

Some Perspective.

Gun Safety from Cracked.

2011-12-08T18:25:00.001-05:00

5 Terrible Things You Can't Stop Your Children From Doing.

Number 2 is about firearms.

Writer John Cheese has worries about his children and firearms.

Now, here's where things really start making me nervous. Every contact my kids have had with guns has been on a fantasy level. Playing Halo and Modern Warfare on the Xbox. Playing with their Nerf guns, which are designed to be shot at humans ... the newest set is comprised of Velcro darts that stick to special T-shirts.
I'm not one of those people who thinks that movies and games turn ordinary people into raging psychopaths, shooting up schools while shouting out the Ten Commandments. But I'm also not ignoring the fact that the only lesson they've had about guns so far is, "Point at a human and pull the trigger to make fun occur."

Sounds like a problem. How does this man confront the issue?

So this year, I went back on my word and got them BB guns for Christmas. Yes, it's not quite the same thing as a 12-gauge shotgun, but it makes me feel a lot better knowing that I can teach them about gun safety without the fear of becoming a newspaper headline.

It's yet another compromise, and you've probably noticed that's pretty much the running theme of this article.

Depending on the ages of his sons the BB gun makes perfect sense. And once they learn and grow maybe a shotgun would become appropriate. But the key is again teaching gun safety. So that when his sons are with friends, or when they're older they'll know how to use a firearm safely.

My point is, I think every single person reading this has a similar story. Yep, violence is bad. Nonviolence is awesome. But you want to tell me that there's never a time to fight? Bullshit.
The first time my own kids encountered a bully, I had to sit down with them and tell them as honestly as I could that they should never go out starting fights or specifically looking for one. But if they found themselves in a situation where nobody could help, they wouldn't be in trouble with me or their mom if they had to throw punches in order to protect themselves.
No, it's not always the best solution. But, standing there and taking punches while nobody comes to your rescue is the quickest way to tell a bully, "You can do this to me anytime you want. I'm easy prey."

And that lesson doesn't stop when you become and adult.

And then there's this bit at the start.

So, when Clusterfuck approaches them, what are they supposed to do? It's really goddamned easy for me to tell my kids, "Just say that you don't want to be friends any more." Sure. Have you ever done that? Looked somebody right in the eyes and said, "I can't talk to you because a third party has determined that you're a bad person."

Okay, now imagine being a ten year old boy and not only having to say that, but also having to explain to your group of mutual friends that either Clusterfuck goes, or he goes.

At least as parents they're in an authority figure. It's far harder when a peer pulls rank with a mutual friend. And it's worse on said mutual friend because they're been placed in a situation of emotional blackmail. Distance and past history also makes it harder, but when someone has proven by his actions to be... unreasonable cutting off contact is the only action.

Though not being in Buffalo made things easier for me in many ways.

But Cheese's ending line is rather poinent on that too.

So yes, kids, sometimes the world is an imperfect place, riddled with assholes. And no, we won't always be there to protect you. If we're not honest about that as parents, what good are we?

Rule 4: Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

2011-12-08T06:45:00.003-05:00

MythBusters crew, you guys really screwed up here.

They were test firing a cannon at some water barrels and missed. Thankfully no one was hurt, but there's a reason ranges are limited on the kind of ordinance you can use and what is a safe direction to fire.

And they also report that this was a "misfire". So that's a violation of rule 1 and a potential violation of rules 2 and 3.

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

There's a reason it takes breaking at least 2 rules for something bad to happen. Depending on the details the Mythbusters could have broken all four (at the very least they broke 2). 4 is especially important since the cannon ball bounced out of the range.

They were very lucky no one got hurt. This also shows that for a group that has been doing this for years and normally has a pretty good safety record that complacency and sloppy safety *will* catch up to you.

One lesson that can be taken from this is the importance of range capacity and limits. What size projectiles can the range's berms, walls, whatever soak up. What angles of fire are acceptable. How much kinetic energy can be used before there's a risk of a projectile ricocheting or bouncing out of the range. How far can a projectile reasonably travel if it is not stopped.

Another interesting thing was the reaction. Last night I was with a mixed crowd when I learned of this story. Those who were more on the gun control side or even just inexperienced with guns were more willing to make excuses for the Mythbusters. While those that were pro-firearms or at least knowledgeable placed the blame on those operating the canon.

The former group treated it like some sort of natural disaster or random accident and underscored how hard the situation would be to repeat. They saw the weapon itself as some sort of actor, bearing some of the blame. One person even pointed to the house that got hit and blamed California building codes.

Meanwhile the latter group admitted that randomness played a big role but that was besides the point on where the responsibility lay. The Mythbusters clearly violated safety rules when operating a large firearm. The weapon was only a danger when people started playing with it in an unsafe manner.

Link via Ace.

Quote of the day... me?

2011-12-06T16:35:00.000-05:00

Yes I made Weerd's Quote of the day.

Here's my reaction to a childish morality play on why we need "gum control".
An anti named Baldr likens gun control to a school trying to clean up gum.

Once again we see that the Anti’s dream world is the school. A place of total top down order and control where no mater who started a fight both parties are equally punished, where anything can be banned, and most importantly where there are two classes of people: the teachers and the children.

That they don’t see people as adult citizens but instead as children that *need* the guiding hand and wise judgment of the Mrs. Cali’s of the world.

On further thinking it's even worse.

Say you want to go from a “strong gum control” class (gum is banned) to a “weak gum control” class (studends can chew gum)? You can’t! Not without the administration’s permission. Internal Passports Ho!

Also students don’t elect teachers, administration, or have any say in school spending or policy. The only representative “government” they have are powerless student councils and a figurehead of a Class President.

Weerd's original post also has a good deconstruction of the anti's mentality too.

Now they ask.

2011-12-04T22:13:00.000-05:00

The New York Times is asking if maybe the police are getting a bit too militarized.

Geee... I wonder what gave them that idea.

Hat tip Glenn Reynolds.

Nanny Bloomberg's Empire... State

2011-12-01T21:12:00.000-05:00

Bloomberg's getting even more out there...

While bragging about how his city is like a nation unto itself, with it's own diplomatic representation, and state department, Bloomberg says this.

I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world.

There you have it, militarization of the police from the mouth of NannyBloomberg himself.

And what nation is the Number seven that Bloomberg's mighty gendarmerie would supplant? Why the US. And how big is the US Army? 550,000

Wait... so the NYPD has more than half a million people on the payroll?

Well no. The NYPD has about 44,500 officers, auxiliary officers, and school safety agents.

Only off by over an order of magnitude eh Bloomberg?

Gross gross delusions of grandeur aside. This very man who crowing about the mass numbers of gunmen in his employ is the head of and financier of the leading Anti-Second Smendment Rights organization in the country.

Isn't it great when a "great leader", who has broken term limit rules to stay in office, brags about his power?

And Bloomberg's crusades against salt and transfats and other nannying nonsense is also well known.

As Weer'd is wont to say, they're not anti-gun, but anti-freedom.

Bloomberg antigun? Clearly, he loves armed people... but only if they've taken the "king's shilling" as it were. In fact, he seems to wish that he had a literal army of guys with guns at his beck and call.

Via: Uncle

But if you question them you're Anti-science.

2011-11-30T20:51:00.002-05:00

Oh those wacky Fins.

The answer he gave, which was either extremely Finnish or extremely religious, is that it has to come from a genuine, bottom-up commitment. That's why turning off lightbulbs is important. To turn off the light when you leave a room is an act of piety just as much as lighting a candle in church. It has no measurable effect on the crisis at all in itself. It doesn't even have a notable effect on your own electricity bill, and if it ever does, the world economy will be in a dreadful mess. But it is a token of seriousness. It is, if you like, a gesture of faith.

Damn anti-science skeptics questioning their faith!

Great Search String: empathy for robot uprising

2011-11-29T23:06:00.000-05:00

3rd on Google for that string.

Not bad.

Heh, and there's already a couple searches for OWS jokes.

Nannystatish Food-Control Neo-Puritanism backfires?

2011-11-29T22:47:00.001-05:00

So San Francisco tried to ban the Happy Meal.
Because clearly parents were helpless and happless at raising children and the State had to come in to keep that eeeevvvviiil Clown from bribing kids with those nefarious toys.

Turns out... their law didn't quite work the way they intended it to.

It turns out San Francisco has not entirely vanquished the Happy Meal as we know it. Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn't come with a toy. For that, you'll have to pay an extra 10 cents.

Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar's much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens' Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.

Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al., in their desire to keep McDonald's from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat -- when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.

That's right.

What did this smugly touted and bragged about law accomplish? It made happy meal toys a bit more expensive and it made the happy meal itself (the very part they were worried about) mandatory.

That prettymuch sums up the nanny state in a nutshell, condescending, expensive, and counter productive. Remember these same Statists thought they knew how to better feed children than their own parents, and yet they couldn't get this law right.

But at least they had good intentions!

Via Top Headlines on Ace

"Gunsmithing" Lesson Learned

2011-11-28T20:30:00.000-05:00

Turns out a new gun will take more filing and working to get new parts in than an older version.

Case in point I'm installing a flat trigger and a steel mainspring housing in a AL frame 4in 1911 I'm making as a gift. It was a bit harder to get the parts in this time than it was on my 1911's.

Guess all that "break in" and "everyday wear" adds up.

And as always be patient and don't try to force things. Also a small metal file, calipers of some kind, and the original part are your friends.

Gunsmithing is in scare quotes because I'm just doing parts swaps.

It's interesting...

2011-11-26T12:52:00.000-05:00

Talk with some of the "The Police are Oppressors!" groups and you get a litany of police wrongs.
And there's a lot to be worried about from no-knock raids, to random TSA checkpoints, to SWAT/Ninja/militarization to the repeal of the Peelian Principles.

There's also those who are against the police for breaking up their blockades, going against their squatting, and screaming about how they tend to arrest criminals.

The problem is often the methods the Police use on "hippie womping" can be quite wrong.

Here's a pretty good litmus test I've found. Ask them about "Only Ones". If they think the State (police, military, ect) are the only ones that should have arms, then they're not against a disparity of force among the Organs of the State. No they just want the State at their beck and call.

Similarly ask them about May Issue. If someone is perfectly fine with the Police having discretionary powers on who can and cannot bear or own a gun. Well... you have to wonder what other fundamental rights they'd be okay with the Police having control over.

Remember some people that complain about Police Brutality do so not because of the brutality but because of the Policeman's choice in target.

Obama to OWS: “You are the reason I ran for office.”

2011-11-22T18:56:00.002-05:00

Pandering much?

This could go bad, given how fringe and violent and filthy OWS is.
Update: Here's OWS's rapsheet so far.
(Remember when the Tea Party committed hundreds of violent acts?)

Oh? The Media's got his back? Good for him.

Yes the mass media is not only trying to downplay the serial voilence at OWS but is trying to ignore any connection between them and the Democrats.

Even though Obama himself has given them great credit. In addition to the titular quote there's him saying: "We are on their side."

And somewhat related: “What kind of movement calls female supporters ‘white bitches’? And what type of women take that to be a term of endearment?”

Via Glenn

Speaking of OWS being a joke...

2011-11-21T18:40:00.000-05:00

Here's their latest brilliant plan.

"Forgive my debt or we'll stop paying!"

Well... with a threat like that.

I'm guessing negotiation isn't their strong suit.

And here's another way to look at it: Occupiers Who Hate Bailouts Come Up with Their Own Bailout

Occupy Wall Street Jokes.

2011-11-21T18:01:00.000-05:00

Given my old post on "Soviet Union Jokes" has been perennially popular, here's a mite of an update.

What’s the difference between Barack Obama’s nebulous whatever-you-want-it-to-mean 2008 campaign and OWS
Three years."

Not Just Anti-Gun

2011-11-21T17:59:00.000-05:00

Bans and Registrations

After canvassing local chain drug and grocery stores, we’ve found out that you can no longer buy iodine to treat small cuts and skin abrasions. The reason is that meth dealers use it to make their product. This ban is a fairly recent development.

A law abiding citizen can’t perform simple first aid at home because somebody else might use the product illegally. Same for decongestants, but at least I was able to buy them after registering at the pharmacy desk.

The war on drugs being used as part of the statist and prohibitionist agenda?

This is my shocked face.

5Star Hotel for OWS Bagmen? Sure, Why not?

2011-11-20T16:44:00.000-05:00

We're already in the "Some Animals are more Equal than others." stage of this little movement.

Why not ramp it up further?

For added irony, the $700 a dollar night, Gordon Gekko unleashing(in the hotel's words), hotel is called the W Hotel.

Well, what's a popular revolution without "the right" people at the helm?

Speaking of having the "right" leader in charge Tam is powerful with the snark today. Sure, the media is pushing Romney as the great white hope and only sane man in the room but really...

They assert this, of course, because only within twenty miles of Beacon Hill does Mitt qualify as "Conservative". Outside of a few coastal enclaves, he's perceived as slightly to the left of the local Democrats and viewed askance as some kind of #OCCUPY_THE_WHITE_HOUSE hippie pinko. There'd be nothing like a Romney-Obama race to encourage Republican voters to stay home in droves, and Barry would beat him like a drum.

Further, even if by some fluke Romney were to win, you'd be replacing a crony capitalist anti-gun politician who was in favor of socialized medicine with a crony capitalist anti-gun politician who was in favor of socialized medicine, but who used a higher SPF sunscreen and wore faith-based underoos.

Nothing like pushing a weak candidate to increase Dear Reader's chances of winning, while also having a safety net ensuring that even if Obama looses, the statists win.

Though as Tam points out in a latter post, the rest of the crowd isn't so hot either.

Have you really stepped back and looked at this Jim Rose Circus you're trotting out in front of the American people? Are you guys trying to throw this election? Or has the job become so onerous that no decent person with an ounce of brains would seriously apply for it anymore?

Y'all are facing the most easily-defeatable incumbent since 1980; he even just gave an actual "malaise" speech for opposing speechwriters to rip up. Whether I agree with their positions or not, I have to say that Christie, Palin, or Daniels would have beat this guy like a piñata. With none of them in the race, that leaves Ron Paul as your sober-sided elder statesman on those debate stages. Let that sink in for a minute.

The current slate is starting to look like the Island of Misfit Toys. (Romney is the Train With Square Wheels.)

And Perry is the cowboy on the ostrich. Is Paul the squirt gun that shoots jelly?

Sometimes the best tool for the job...

2011-11-20T13:42:00.000-05:00

Is a giant 8 gauge shotgun.

Found here

Being able to propel a mass at high velocity in a controllable and reliable manner is very useful.

As Wee'rd says: "Obviously defensive, military, sport, and food-harvesting applications are where guns shine... Guns are tools, some less mature people may not LIKE the jobs they’re good for, but that doesn’t make them any less tools."

And for the curious here's my comment on Weer'd's where I explain my wiki-wander

Shorter Romney: The Fed's can't mandate you buy X or else but the States sure can.

2011-11-17T19:42:00.000-05:00

Romney: “I am not going to walk away from that. It’s right for states to come up with their own solutions. I doubt other people are going try and follow the one we put together. Maybe learn from our experience. Maybe come up with something better. But the wrong course is to have the federal government impose its will on the entire nation.”

Get that? Statehouses and Governors can impose their will on the entire state, but somehow the same action is wrong for President and Congress to do for a nation. I wonder what size governmental organization is acceptable? Clearly Massachusetts is okay but what about a larger state? Or what about a smaller nation?

Well, Romney still clings to Romneycare being somehow "different" from Obamcare. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Rule 34 & The Future of Gun Control

2011-11-17T19:04:00.000-05:00

Small world, Roberta X just finished Stross' Rule 34

I did too a couple days ago, and that gave me the push to write my own thoughts on the book.

Roberta: "It's a sort of cyberdectective novel, but very different. And it's set in Scotland, so it might as well be on Ganymede..."

No kidding, the cyber-future version of the Scotland:
* Euro-philic (euros only please),
* Green-lovin'(not a dimplomat? then you can't have a car),
* Security state (the State watches everything you browse do and build can't have you making guns boyo),
* "Responsible" corporatism (Precrime has been brought to the corporate world with auditors pouring over companies that are "irresponsible" with their "corporate personhood". So don't even *think* about "immoral" layoffs or outsourcing. So corporations have to pledge their allegiance to the State? Huh, familiar.),
* Nationalized supermarkets (because they took out nearly every other shop in the nation and were deemed "too big to fail"),
* Totally disamred (having a gun is likened to having child porn)

Yeah, it's pretty alien.

Oh and while they have drug legalization, heroin smuggling is still very proffitable and making your own meth is quite illegal. Maybe the former is a revenuer situation and the latter is a safety situation. Or maybe the State doesn't want you having your own supply of "candy" and wants the State-Owned Tesco your only sorce.

Speaking of that Scotland is independent... sort of, but still depends on England for defense and is subsumed into the Greater European Union. Reading it I got an eerie feeling of those late 80's scifi authors who talked about the USSR.

Reading it, I thought it was an okay book, a bit too "by the numbers" for Stross: too similar to its predecessor "Halting State". Then the ending came and it all clicked. And his choices of narrative strcuture and perspective became abundantly clear. I still think the ending was rushed in execution and rather unpolishsed though, but all in all it was a fun book.

On the other hand, it shows how a hyper gun control state could exist in a world where 3D printers are ubiquitous. For one metal fabrication is a rare thing in that world, two your raw materials are tracked by the goverment (yes plastic pellets are a controled substance), three there's a near constant surveillance state so if you try to use whatever you've fabbed you'll be spotted.

Meanwhile in the US it seems that gun control didn't happen but a 90% top marginal tax rate did. With the expected wealth flight. Amusingly, Stross says that the mass US debt was all due to US imperialism and military spending, and glosses over the debts and resultant taxation European nations would have incurred.

Oh yes, and Scotland still has functional single-payer healthcare. Which is all a piece of the same perspective that felt that all the economic woes were caused purely by greedy irresponsible corporations.

And this really made me chuckle sadly: In one scene two detectives run into a perp on the stairs and they're reduced to trying "good old fisticuffs" against him. Needless to say the perp just womps 'em with a suitcase. That's a pretty good example of how mass disarmament makes bullies into kings.

What makes it more chilling is another character who was afraid of the perp came to one of the cops for protection and stayed with her for a bit. So... if the perp had attacked them... what exactly would the cop have done?

There's also the higher education bubble popping. Where a previously mentioned cop, mid level police inspector, still can't pay off her student loans.

And of course, in the back story there's a paranoid American family that lives out in Nevada on a compound with a bunker. And the father of the family is "a man of faith" with this as his "bible" The End of America: How the Federal Government, the IRS and the Insurance Industry plan to use the UN to Destroy America, and how you can resist.

And that made me really laugh. Given Stross had painted a weakened, impoverished US with hideously high taxes, massive regulation, a fishbowl panopticon. And a Scotland with much the same, save for even more surveillance, no personal car ownership, no guns, company loyalty inspections, and, oh yes, government controlled food distribution.

Yeah... kinda makes a book with a title like that seem pretty sensible.

Still was a fun book, but you may have to put it down every once in a while and shake your head at the dystopia painted within. Not that it's not too far from the current UK.

The bad old days.

2011-11-17T18:29:00.001-05:00

Tam looks at how far the Second Amendment Rights movement has come in the last couple decades.

If you had showed up in that gun store of 1995 and told everybody that you were a time traveler from a 2011 where the AWB had sunset; 'Vermont-style' carry was now 'Vermont/Alaska/Arizona/Wyoming-style'; the House of Representatives had just passed, by a hefty margin, a national CCW reciprocity bill; there was a shooting-based game show on prime-time national TV; and you could buy a collapsible-stock AR carbine with a bayonet lug in Wal-Mart, the people in the gun shop would have laughed in your face and told you to stop telling tall tales. And not about the 'time travel' part, either, because that was plausible by comparison.

This was all a bit before my time. I grew up in Jersey but my parents were gunnies so that helped. By the time I was old enough to really "get" the headaches of gun laws in NJ we had moved to Upstate New York. And yes, they both had carry permits up there, and a "pre ban" AR15. Again I liked guns but was too young and too poor to have my own.

Then I moved to Indiana and started buying my own stuff, and it was night and day.
And given my westward move this line from Tam is a bit chilling.

And Joe Huffman looks at how bad it was back in the day.

And it is a big sign the progress that has been made.

But go back to Joe's post, those politicians who endorsed for full confiscation and British style gun control are still around. And they have the same goals.

Just look at Sebastian's live blogging on yesterday's HR822 National Reciprocity debate in congress. Same lies, same insanity, much of the same face.

The big difference is how much further they have to move, and that the Bradys are on the downfall and Nanny Bloomberg is on the upswing.

Gee... maybe you should have READ that bill before passing it.

2011-11-16T18:48:00.000-05:00

Turns out Obamacare(aka PPACA) has yet another flaw... and this one's a biggie.

Under ObamaCare, the IRS becomes the arbiter of health-insurance acceptability. Now Barack Obama needs the IRS to rescue ObamaCare entirely, thanks to a massive legislative defect that the President has no hope of rectifying in the new Congress. Thanks to sloppy legislative work, the PPACA’s subsidies to taxpayers won’t apply in states that refuse to create exchanges — which means that the states have a clear mechanism to block ObamaCare’s implementation.

Whoopsie? Talk about passing the bill to find out what's in it.

You can guess the "solution" the admin wants. Just have the IRS "fix" the law. We're seeing a pretty good example of "Living Constitution" logic at work here. The law as written is a massive boondoggle that's shot itself in the foot? Never-fear, we'll just pretend that we passed the bill we wanted to pass.

Unfortunately for Obama, federal agencies can create rules — but they cannot amend statutes. Neither can executive orders. If the statute does not authorize premium assistance in federal exchanges, then it would require an act of Congress to amend the statute to allow it.

Though again, the administration might see this failure as a feature not a bug, and use it to force states to comply. Isn't that nice?

Ace has similar thoughts

Click on the link to read (or re-read) Obama's attempt to legislate as president-- the IRS is claiming it can, on its own power, re-write the law.

Time was we used to think laws had to be passed by Congress. Under Obama, not so much.

And people were worried that Obamacare would make healthcare more like the DMV. Turns out it'll be the IRS.

Alex Wagner and friends Sad Pandas

2011-11-15T22:23:00.001-05:00

Ahh, what better way to start a new show on MSNBC with a new host than by decrying US gun culture while singing the praises of the enlightened British.

Alex Wagner: "Gun violence increases and yet people still believe handgun bans are bad. What's the logic there?"

Ahhh. Well firstly, that said violence is increasing is factually wrong. Secondly, it's "Gun Death" all over again. The idea that certain crimes are especially bad because of the tool used. And finally, there's magical thinking, that the item is at fault here.

Via: Alphecca

Though topping it all off is this lovely sentiment by a co-panelist.

For his part, panelist John Heilemann theorized that a drop in violent crime has made "gun violence" largely "theoretical" to most Americans.

"The urgency around it is leached out because of the fact that there's actually, in a paradoxical way, a very big good news story that's happened with respect to crime in America," Heilemann added

So not only does this directly contradict Wagner's initial claims, but it shows how the Anti's think. They're sad that more Americans aren't hurt by violent criminals.

A Tale of 2 Kahr PM45's

2011-11-14T17:24:00.000-05:00

For me the hardest part of acquiring Kahr's sub-compact 45 was buying one of the dang things. At the time they were in short supply. However, once I found one at a gun shop I was able to make the purchase, clear NCIS and take it home immediately. That's how it works in Indiana and the bulk of the US

Let's compare Indiana, and the bulk of the US, to Massachusetts.

Here's Weer'd and The Story of Eleanor. Same gun, different states.

Let's look at some real loopholes:

Now for those who don’t know we have a bullshit system here in Mass where guns first need to be approved for “Safety”. BTW some well-known guns that are “Unsafe” for Massachusetts are everything in the Glock line, as well as all handguns made by Springfield Armory or Colt. Now Colt and Springer just didn’t want to play with the Attorney General’s stupid games and never submitted a single unit for testing. Companies like Kahr and Glock submitted EVERYTHING they had (this was destructive testing and likely cost millions), the guns passed the safety tests…but the AG decided in his infinite wisdom that the guns were still “Unsafe” and couldn’t be sold.

Ok so how does one get around this. First the law ONLY effects FFL transfers, so you can privately sell these guns all you want. (well we’re allowed 4 sales per year) There is one exception, is an FFL can transfer guns that are given to you through a will estate. I didn’t feel like asking one of my friends or relatives to buy one and then die…I like the gun but not that much, I needed to look at the other options. One way is to have an officer buy a gun (cops are exempted from all our bullshit laws) and then sell the gun to you. There are several cops in the state that run a racket like that. The other is to get somebody to move into state, get their LTC and then sell it.

Get that? Whole product lines from major companies are "banned", but only for the proles. If you're police, well, not only can you buy them but you can sell them. Oh, and if you happen to move to Mass and then are deemed worthy of a licencee to posses... then you can pick up your guns and sell them.

Clearly, safety is at the forefront of the Attorney General's mind here.

And by the way... both guns (in fact all of Karh's guns) were made in Worcester... Massachusetts.

Safe enough to make (and tax) in Mass, safe enough for the police to own, safe enough for the police to sell, safe enough to bring into the state... but not safe enough to for the commoner to buy.

This is what the Anti's think of as Common Sense.

Eleven/Eleven

2011-11-11T15:27:00.000-05:00

Today is a day to honor all veterans but it is for a specific war and a specific event.

It's Armistice Day. The day the guns fell silent.[1] And no matter how much Congress or your Social Studies teacher wants to retcon it to a safely generic holiday for "Veterans," that is why this day falls on this date. The Brits, somewhat more felicitously, call it "Remembrance Day," and it should indeed be that.

You can't express your gratitude to the men who fought the first mechanized war. Even the ones who were not ground in the gears are gone now; all that's left are scars on the landscape [2], redrawn maps that were scribbled over again a generation later, histories, monuments.

Roberta then tells you what you can do.

Tam has more thoughts.

So go an thank a Veteran for the sacrifices they have endured, even if they will demure and be humble.

Even if they'll be laconic.

Make the offer to take one to lunch(as Jay G suggests) or by a drink. Or donate your time or money to a cause.

It is good to know that there are sill men and women that actually take their jobs as a public service and will sacrifice and endure to ensure the liberty for the rest of us.

So, thank the real public servants.

And back to JayG for a bit of gun porn and a great salutation
Thank you, veterans - may you all have as long a tenure as the 1911!

I told you so.

2011-11-08T21:58:00.000-05:00

So Bill Clinton wants a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.

Lovely.

Well he's a bit behind the curve. Rep. José Serrano wanted this before Obama was even sworn in.

Well, at least Obama doesn't want to be president-for-life.

A good Cause.

2011-11-08T21:54:00.000-05:00

Going into Veteran's day there's a lot of things you can donate too and support.

I'll at another one. Bring Chuck Home.

Raising funds to bring a soldier's adopted dog back home from Afghanistan.

Just as planned.

2011-11-06T09:46:00.000-05:00

You know... this is making it real hard to see Fast and Furious as anything other than an excuse for more gun control.

And isn't that a classic example of flogging the peasants because the princes were bad.

Agents of the State illegally ship weapons to Mexico and the Democrats demand that private citizens need tighter regulation. Yeah... sounds like the antis all right.

What kind of movement needs anti-rape shelters?

2011-11-06T01:44:00.000-04:00

OWS needs women only tents to keep down on the rape and sexual abuse.

Classy.

The large, metal-framed “safety tent” — which will be guarded by an all-female patrol — can accommodate as many as 18 people and will be used during the day for women-only meetings, said Occupy Wall Street organizers.

Talk about rebuilding from day one. They've got the basic tenants of state-sanctioned force and the risk of harriers and bandits absconding and abusing women.

Soon they'll discover agriculture.

Also this is in New York City where legal ownership of self defense tools (from handguns to even tasers and such) is only for agents of the state and the very highest of the elite.

But why would someone need a tool that can inflict massive pain and physical damage no mater the physique of the user?

Allahpundit stresses the seriousness.

Let it sink in: Their protests now need rape shelters. This is actually happening. And New York City lets it go on.

...

This can’t be repeated enough: With a few exceptions, foremost among them the New York Post, the coverage of OWS protests compared to the coverage of tea-party protests is the worst media double standard in recent history. Nothing compares, because nothing else involves this much distortion on both ends of the coverage. It’s not just that most press outlets (like the protesters themselves) look the other way at depravity happening inside Obamaville, it’s that for years they treated the tea-party movement as some sort of feral mob that was forever on the brink of rampaging through the streets — like, say, Occupy Oakland just did. If you missed it when I posted it last week, go watch the ad the DNC ran in August 2009 when tea partiers first started showing up to town halls on ObamaCare. That set the tone. We began the year with tea-party pols being smeared as killers over a shooting they had nothing to do with and we end it with actual rapes being shrugged off by the press because they’re bad PR for a movement they support. Disgrace.

Remember this next time you hear the media click their tongues over a protest they don't like or when they gush over one they do like.

Via Insty.

This time, this TIME! It'll work!

2011-11-04T23:03:00.000-04:00

Totalitarian Hope Springs Eternal

This compilation of old hippies pining for revolution amongst college kids who simply don’t want to make their own way is the unsurprising result of liberalism in America today. This is what happens when children are fed faux lessons in self esteem and tolerance from broken family systems and then taught in school that the theory of communism is noble, if only the implementation could be mastered. American students are engulfed in a sea of liberalism from kindergarten through university, often void of any opposing views and without prompting to study the historical precedent and common sense consequences of the ideology with which they’re being indoctrinated.

Well, surely these folks ccan master the implementation.

Nope, not so much

In a hilariously idiotic display of irony, Occupy Wall Street is experiencing firsthand the failure of the system they are clamoring for. They squabbled over how to properly distribute the over half a million dollars in donations they received. Some people felt they deserved more because they were doing more activist work, versus those who spent their occupying days playing drum circles or doing, well, nothing. What's incredible is that the same people arguing over how to redistribute the wealth given them are pushing for a complete American system of wealth redistribution. They see no correlation between their own inability to "fairly" distribute money and that government mandated wealth distribution would just assuredly fail as well, but on a massive, nation-shaking economic scale.

Clearly, the problem is that they don't have enough power to enforce their ideas.

Via: The Morning Jolt and Ace

Hey, remember when the Tea Partiers went around breaking into buildings to vandalise them and had to be scared off by armed property owners?

Nanny Bloomberg's "Cheap" Date

2011-11-03T21:31:00.001-04:00

Indy Mayoral candidate Melina Kennedy doesn't seem to realize the limitations of her office.

Two big planks of her platform are "fixing the schools" and controlling those evil guns.
Problem is that Indianapolis schools are not under the control of the Mayor.
And neither is gun laws, since Indiana passed a state level preemption law banning any locality from making their own laws.

But that hasn't stopped Melina Kennedy!

Now she's attacking the incumbent Ballard for... not being in Mayors Against Illegal Guns!

Yes how dare he not be in an organization with a membership more likely to commit crime than the population at large, which is involved in illegal "sting" operations, and is really Mayor Bloomberg's gun control mouth piece.

And by pure coincidence guess who got 25 large from Bloomberg just before she started this new line of attack.

Classy.

Hat tip to Roberta and Tam

More Magic!

2011-11-02T20:56:00.000-04:00

Eugene Kane frets about Wisconsin joining the bulk of America.

Sebastian at his new digs at Shall Not be Questioned looks at the fear:

I also wonder why Eugene Kane is so fearful of his fellow citizens and co-workers. Do you think as soon as you put a gun in someone’s hands they magically turn into murderers? Are people in Minnesota, which has a lower violent crime rate than Wisconsin, less safe because they have allowed shall-issue carry permits for years? What about Iowa, who’s violent crime rate is roughly the same as Wisconsin and also has shall-issue carry?

He's brimming with fear of all those proles being able to legally carry concealed now (nevermind that they could have illegally carried concealed or legally open carried previously...)

But then it gets silly:

Thankfully, the “No Weapons Allowed in the Building” sign has been posted at my job, which was a great relief for some of us who write the kind of stories that occasionally get the public agitated.

Seriously? He actually thinks that a sign would stop someone intent on harm? How?
In what world would a person who is willing to risk a murder rap be unwilling to risk an armed trespass charge?

Maybe the world of magic.

I guess it's a good thing these guys didn't use guns to destroy the french magazine Charlie Hebdo's offices.

I'm seeing the publication equivalent of Wee'rd "Gun Death" series.

Though Time's taking a novel approach on that story.

Time Magazine Writer: That French Magazine knew what it was doing tarting itself up with that short skirt, high heels, and walking past those men. She knew they couldn't control themselves.

Ace looks into the original headline of the article.

Like I said, the web-based headline -- that continues in the URL -- is:

firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/

So the original headline was: "Firebombed French Paper: A Victim of Islam, Or Its Own Obnoxious Islamaphobia?"

And we'll round out by going back to Wee'rd on the antis. They want you less free, less informed, and less able to defend yourself. But they're all about empowering criminals. Because it's not their fault they did bad things.

Because it's Halloween: Kittens and Pumpkins

2011-10-31T18:15:00.000-04:00

Okay, so they're a bit big.

Lunch and a Book

2011-10-29T16:21:00.000-04:00

Today's errands took me to Broadripple and I stopped by Boogie Burger for lunch.

The place is a bit twee (I can only imagine what it was like at it's old location), but the food is quite, quite good. Worth the price (which is quite modest) and the wait (which was short).

Tam is right, the place was full and the burgers are that good.

If you want some burgers, fries, or shakes, that's the place.

While there I read some more of Larry Correia's Hard Magic. I wasn't too keen on Monster Hunter, mostly because I found the characters a bit flat and the villains motivations meh. There was also the tacked on romance that required some headbangingly questionable moves on the part of a woman who just had her soft-of-but-not-yet exboyfriend kidnapped.

However, Hard Magic has deeper characterization overall, and enough gun-porn and historical fanboy squee to make it quite fun to read.

Not Science.

2011-10-27T20:31:00.002-04:00

When you have to constantly "recalibrate" your model to get it to predict existing behavior you're not doing science or even understanding the underlying mechanism of the phenomena you're tyring to model. No, you're simply engaging in the type of thinking that if you make the bamboo plane a little bit bigger it'll attract John Frum and his silver eagles.

Poor modeling, it's not just for Global Warming anymore.

The problem, of course, is that while these different versions of the model might all match the historical data, they would in general generate different predictions going forward--and sure enough, his calibrated model produced terrible predictions compared to the "reality" originally generated by the perfect model. Calibration--a standard procedure used by all modelers in all fields, including finance--had rendered a perfect model seriously flawed. Though taken aback, he continued his study, and found that having even tiny flaws in the model or the historical data made the situation far worse. "As far as I can tell, you'd have exactly the same situation with any model that has to be calibrated," says Carter.

That financial models are plagued by calibration problems is no surprise to Wilmott--he notes that it has become routine for modelers in finance to simply keep recalibrating their models over and over again as the models continue to turn out bad predictions. "When you have to keep recalibrating a model, something is wrong with it," he says. "If you had to readjust the constant in Newton's law of gravity every time you got out of bed in the morning in order for it to agree with your scale, it wouldn't be much of a law But in finance they just keep on recalibrating and pretending that the models work."

And why yes, these are the exact same models that the political class uses to justify how they can run all the businesses in a country better than those that actually own and work in said companies.

Well, they use these models when they're not guided by their keen sense of social justice.

Via the Instapundit.

Update: Oh and also from Prof. Reynolds is this little article. For liberals, income inequality is the new global warming.

Well, Science says we have to do what our political masters tell us to.

We're protesting how the wealthy hurt the downtrodden... but first we'll kick these mooching hobos outta the camp.

2011-10-27T19:39:00.000-04:00

Via Weer'd, DaddyBear has a great rant on the lack of perspective many have:

My point is that I'm tired of hearing people whine. If I had the power, I'd take each and every one of these class-baiting twits to the real world and let them see what poverty really looks like. I'd show them people who come from huts made out of garbage who are working their tails off to get out of that hut. I'd show them women who have to carry weapons every day, not so they don't have their purse stolen, but so that they're not kidnapped and raped. I'd show them graveyards full of the people who tried to make things better, but were rewarded with a bullet in the head for their trouble.

Then I'd show them the poorest of the poor here in America, a place that gives away free food, shelter, clothing, education, medical help, and just about anything else a person needs in order to not only stay alive, but to thrive and become a producing member of society if they would only care enough to do it.

Then, I would dare them to try to say that even the 'poor' in America aren't doing pretty good. I'd dare them to show me the thousands of children who are dieing of diseases that can be cured with a dollar's worth of medicine. I'd dare them to show me the millions of children who aren't going to school because they have to work as hard as an adult to stay alive. I'd dare them to show me the graves of the people who die from mal-nourishment in America.

Then I'd laugh in their face as they try to come up with examples, because there aren't any. Generations of Americans have bled into our soil so that these problems stayed away, and we continue to do so now.

If we don't wake up, we are going to lose the ethics of hard work, self-reliance, and ingenuity that have been all that has kept us from sliding back into the morasse that our fore-fathers sailed across oceans to get away from. Our ancestors didn't come over in steerage or worse so that their grandchildren could demand that others take care of them, and they would be ashamed if they saw how this movement is acting.

Read the rest.

This fits with Ace's post talking about how the "99%ers" and "Occupiers" are dealing with the less fortunate right here in America.

Here's the opener:

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.

Yeah, what right do the homeless and prisoners have to represent themselves as society's downtrodden. Impostors! They're not oppressed like the college graduates with too much debt from pricey private colleges!

...

Amazing... they don't want to share their own stuff with people they don't have any particular common bonds with. And they're resentful of Other people coming in and acting like they have the right to take their stuff.

Hilariously, they're also getting angry that these "derelicts" are trespassing on their encampments. My, more property rights? Well they've also started setting up their own security and police. It's like a little hothouse primative society. Emphasis on hothouse, because it only exists due to the warm bubble being provided by external forces.

So there you go, they scream and demand that someone else pay for their mistakes and pay to keep them in a lifestyle they think they deserve, but when someone from the "outside" comes to take what they've got?

Such generous and open-minded people. No wonder they feel that charity is only moral if it's forced at gunpoint.

Real Progress (26%)

2011-10-26T18:09:00.000-04:00

Twenty years makes a big difference. Record low, just 26% favor a ban of handguns in the US. Overall support for Gun Control is down... everywhere and in every segment of the population.

If you think that’s dramatic, take a look at what happened to the demographics on this question. Guess which demos saw the biggest drop in support for stricter gun-control laws? If you guessed the Midwest, well, score a point for you; support in the heartland dropped 35 points, from 72% in 1991 to 37%. Midwesterners used to be the second-most supportive of gun control by region but now are the most opposed, even beating the South at 40%. Aaaaaaaand if you guessed Republicans, score another point. Two-thirds of Republicans in 1991 wanted more gun control, but it’s down to 31% today. Independents dropped nearly as much, from 65% to 38%.

In fact, only four demographics show a majority still favoring gun control: women (50%, down 26 points), the East (54%, down 23 points), those with no guns in the household (57%, down 21 points), and … Democrats, down just 10 points to 64%. That may not seem like much, but that’s still slightly lower than Republicans in 1991

This dovetails with the increasing number of Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry States.

Plus a bonus video at the end that is equal parts hilarious and cautionary.

The overall trend from 1959 is also very encouraging, but care has to be taken. Nothing is irreversible. Heaven forbid that this is all undone in the next twenty years.

That being said, we are winning, and we are winning by pushing back ignorance and because the truth and natural rights are on our side. More and more people are exposed to handguns to "evil black rifles" to people lawfully carrying sidearms.

And against this the Anti's become more shrill and idiotic and dated.

That's not to say that there haven't been setbacks or there isn't a lot of work to go.

For example, Weer'd talks about a proposed National CCW reciprocity bill and shows just how corrupt and illogical May issue is.

But as a Massachusetts resident I’ve seen what HR 822 will do first hand. First give a quick skim of this list, when I first moved here I lived in Medford Massachusetts where they do not issue carry permits to anybody who isn’t politically connected. Period, full stop. Unless you can hurt the chief of police politically, your rights don’t exist.

Now fast forward to today, I live in one of them “Green” towns where the permits are “Shall Issue” (BTW this is how “May Issue” states work anyway. Its not like my character changed, simply the town will issue you a permit, or it won’t there is no “Discretion” involved), Now I can carry EVERYWHERE in the state. I can, and regularly DO carry in Boston, I carry in Cambridge, I carry in my old neighborhood of Medford. You see while the permits are issued by the town police, the permit is a STATE document. Meaning if its good in my town, its good in every Massachusetts town.

Lovely ain't it?

"Remember when tea party rally were shut down by force because of sanitation issues? Good times, good times."

2011-10-26T17:44:00.003-04:00

Ace of Spades looks back.

And remember when the Teabaggers threw paint at the cops at got teargassed and shot with rubber bullets. Those were the days.

And speaking of insane claims... Jay G tears into Elizabeth Warren