Friday, January 30, 2015

Dobynsgate Updated

Here are some updates about Dobynsgate:

Jay Dobyns wikipedia page

From David Codrea (of The War on Guns fame)

Judge alleges 'fraud on the court' by government attorneys in Dobyns case

Revoked judgement in Dobyns case reveals further government misconduct

David Codrea and Jay Dobyns on Armed America Radio (auto-opening audio file)

From David Hardy (Of Arms and the Law fame)

Unsealed court files in Jay Dobyns case full of bombshells

More on Jay Dobyns case

Judgement in Dobyns case

Busy Day

Go read. And please spread it around - Facebook, Twitter, whatever. This should have much more coverage than it has so far.


 Miss Claire pointed out two articles on mental health and gun ownership the other day. One was concerning the idea that too much time spent on the internet could disqualify someone from owning firearms. The other explains that more than half of the populace may have a diagnosed mental illness.

Mr. Vanderboegh points to an article that claims opposition to authority is a form of mental illness.(which is based upon the same source as the first article about internet habits; the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (5th edition) which was released in 2013.

Chipping in my 0.008 Drachma's, I stumbled across something else. The very weak and complicated links between mental illness and gun violence is an article concerning a study entitled Mental Illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (.pdf). Not exactly a pro-gunowner take on things, but it does refute the idea that all folks with mental illnesses are dangerous and it could provide some defense against the notion that background checks should be expanded to catch the mentally ill as they're not that much of a concern..

Now all of these together should make the notion of using mental illness as a disqualifier for firearms ownership a problematic and troubling proposition. If the definitions in the DSM-5 that are mentioned above are used, then we could all very well be "the wrong people".

For the halibut, below the fold will be a probably-not-safe-for-work director's cut video from our favorite rock star machine gun owners and the music video debut of Arwen Undómiel.

Sunday, January 25, 2015


I assume that most folks that visit here are already keeping up with the other fine bloggers listed on the blogroll. Just in case it missed your notice I'd point you to this Examiner column penned by David Codrea in which he explains the allegations of fraud (by the presiding judge no less) against the ATFEIEIO and the DOJ in the Dobyns case.

I'm a bit rushed so no time for extensive commentary, and Mr. Codrea's piece has about all the information on the situation that's available, but I will point out that it'd be downright shameful if the mainstream media did not pick up on this story and run with it. Likewise, if any republican (or democrat for that matter) had a lick of sense, this case would be mentioned every time the question of the ATFEIEIO's or the DOJ's budget came up. 

Friday, January 23, 2015

A War Most Civil

In Marvel Comic's Civil War storyline, a conflict develops over the proposal of a Superhuman Registration Act. Tony Stark (Iron Man) supports such a law, on the basis that it is inevitable and if they are part of the process they can temper the bill so that the resulting law won't be as onerous as it otherwise would be. Opposition to the act is led appropriately enough by Captain America. Initially both sides engage in argument and debate, but after the act passes the pro-registration side starts to hunt down and actively combat the anti-registration heroes. It ends with the anti-registration faction surrendering to avoid further bloodshed, and Captain America imprisoned (and eventually assassinated).

Just twixt you and me, any strategy that leads to Captain America being offed by his own government is not a cool one.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Less Bad Is Worse

A few seemingly pro-gunowner groups have supported gunowner control laws, using the justification that the law was going to pass no matter what, but by supporting it they were able to enact changes that lessened its severity. It as inevitable but by supporting it they made a bad law less bad.

I disagree with damn near everything about this practice, and I openly question the motives and sincerity of folks who use such rationalizations, but let's look at the premise:

Law X would be bad, but it has enough support that it will likely pass. So support is given to Law X and some changes are made, transforming it from a severe law to a moderately bad one. Does this help overall?

By taking a severe law and injecting some measure of moderation into it then the immediate results is that it has less of a drastic impact in the short term, but in the long run it makes it harder to repeal. It is easier to convince a legislature to revisit and repeal a law that is a big change that negatively impacts people than it isif the law was only a moderate change. The same is true of court rulings, and most importantly convincing people to disobey such laws.

Let's say Law X would prohibit magazine with a capacity of more than 6 rounds. Due to the extreme nature of such a law it would not be difficult to persuade either a future legislature or a court that the measure goes too far by almost any standard, and encouraging non-compliance wouldn't be difficult. But if Law X were modified to prohibit magazines that held more than 15 rounds it would make compliance less onerous and consequently make it more difficult to convince a legislature or court of its burdensome nature.

In the short term it seems to help by lessening the damage done by a law, but in the long run it makes a law harder to repeal or have ruled unconstitutional. Further it makes intensifying the effects of a law by further additions over time more plausible. Law X prohibits 15 rounds today, but in 5 years it's reduced to 12, then 10, and finally after a decade or two it's down to the original 6 round limit. Going from unlimited to 6 in on swoop is pretty shocking. Going from unlimited to 15, then to 12, then to 10, then to 6 over the course of some years is less striking. People would gradually become accustomed to it and that would reduce pressure on the government to change such a law.

You know the old saying about gradually turning up the heat to boil a frog. Well imagine a pot full of frogs and when the heat is turned up too fast, some frogs yell to the chef "Hey! Turn it down or we'll jump out of the pot!". That is what the long term effect of "making a bad law less bad" is, and the folks who advocate it, no matter how well meaning, are in the long run hurting the very cause they claim to be aiding.

(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Was The Spent Spun

I'm using numbers from Dean Weingarten's Analysis of I-594's passage

Polls have shown over 90% support for background checks. The mainstream media was overwhelmingly supportive of I-594. Bloomberg, et al spent over $10 million to get this "universal" background check passed in Washington state.

$600,000 was spent to directly oppose Washington's "universal" background check initiative. The initiative passed with just shy of 60% in favor.

The strategy was to promote a competing measure to I-594. That competing measure was I-591. It was hoped that it would cause voters to vote for it instead of I-594, but if I-594 passed anyway that I-591 would be passed as well and negate I-594.  According to ballotpedia's I-591 page, about $1.2 million was spent promoting I-591.

What I'm wondering is if $600,000 was enough to drop theoretical support from 90% (according to more generalized polls - I'm seeing between 60% & 81%, counting undecideds on the high end but not countig them on the low end, for polls specifically about I-594) to a little over 59% (according to election results), then would spending that $1.2 million on direct opposition to I-594 instead of using it to pimp I-591 have caused I-594's defeat?

Perhaps we weren't outspent, but rather we misspent. 

Something to ponder if anyone tells you that we tried to fight "universal" background checks in Washington state and lost because Bloomie the Hut has too much money.

(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)

Monday, January 12, 2015

Bobbing For Appeasement

Like a 17 year old sci-fi geek who just got the Clockwork Angels Tour on Blu-Ray, I'm a bit rushed.

Et tu, Bob? Seems Bob Owens is playing Halifax to Gottlieb's Chamberlain.

To refute his, Gottlieb's and any others' counsel when they speak positively of appeasement, may I present for your edification:

Agin' Background Check Appeasement

The Wrong People

All We Are Saying Is Give Appease A Chance

Bouncing Background Checks

Also, Joe Huffman's thoughts on Background Checks and Neal Knox's tale about The Belgian Corporal.

To try to sum it up (though clicking those links will lead to a much more thorough understanding of the danger and futility of background checks) giving in on background checks will not accomplish anything for us in the medium to long run, as whatever short term gains we receive will be overshadowed by the harm background checks and our acquiescence to them cause us. It will erode the principals upon which we base our opposition to laws that intrude upon our Rights, while furthering the anti's cause. It will not stop the anti's, it will help them. It will not help us, it will hurt us. What we must do is fight, not just an expansion of background checks, but all background checks, even the ones we endure now. Surrendering is not fighting. A wise fellow once said that evil is never stopped by fleeing from it. I'd posit that evil is never stopped by compromising with it.

Remember, appeasement is for chumps.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Bouncing Background Checks

If you've read anything I've written in the past week (or ever) you've probably realized that I'm opposed to background checks under any pretext whatsoever. I think supporting any sort of expansion of background checks is an unwise move and definitely not the best option we have as gunowners. So, what should we do instead of appeasement?

The biggest problem we have regarding background checks (and proponents of appeasement continually bring this up to justify their position) is public opinion. Polls and initiatives so far have shown that a majority of people support background checks and/or their expansion. In large part this is because the mythology of background checks (i.e. keeping "the wrong people" from acquiring guns) is appealing to people. Most folks don't delve deeply enough into the subject to realize how ineffective background checks are at their purported goals, or how dangerous background checks are to them, or the potential consequences and co-requisites of background check expansion. This, as always, is the tactic that our opposition relies on; misinformed or ill informed electorates.

So what we should do is simple (which is not to be confused with easy). The solution to ignorance is education, not capitulation.We should inform the electorate. Here are my ideas on how to accomplish this:

Thursday, January 08, 2015

All We Are Saying Is Give Appease A Chance

Let us take a look into a fairly reliable crystal ball I like to call history and see what will happen if we choose appeasement by supporting "universal" background checks in exchange for other concessions...

Let us assume we can get some modest gains in exchange for supporting some sort of "universal" background check. National CCW reciprocity is most likely, and perhaps another bone or two, such as suppressors or short barreled long guns being removed from the NFA,  It's possible we could see some sort of "restoration of Rights" process for non-violent offenders. There will of course be a provision that makes a federal database of guns illegal, as well as exemptions for family and spouses. It would likely only apply to sales or long term loans, gifts and trades. The devil being in the details it's no use to speculate about all the possibilities so let's just go with something general for this discussion.

So we support "universal" background checks at the national level. What then?

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

From The Billing Department

I wasn't sure if anything would be filed yet, it being only the first day of the session, but I did find some firearms related bills in the Colorado legislature.

State of the State

 That'd of course be My, the State. So how are things in The Centennial State you ask? In the words of Hoyt from John Boy and Billy's The Big Show, not too good.

If you're in Colorado, fear for your wallet and your liberty, and possibly your virtue as well:

The Colorado Legislature is back in session.

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

From My Cold Sled Hands

Dubuque, Iowa is the latest in a number of towns and cities that have banned sledding. Yep. Sledding. The bans appear to be limited to city owned property.

"We have all kinds of parks that have hills on them,' said Marie Ware, Dubuque's leisure services manager. 'We can't manage the risk at all of those places."

The risk they speak of is from lawsuits:

"...a $2 million judgment against Omaha, Nebraska, after a 5-year-old girl was paralyzed when she hit a tree and a $2.75 million payment when a man in Sioux City, Iowa, slid into a sign and injured his spinal cord."

I found some info on the Omaha case mentioned above. A family's two daughters hit some trees at the bottom of a hill while they were sledding. The family's attorneys claim the city is responsible because they knew the trees posed a hazard to sledders. Connelly v. City Of Omaha was decided by the Nebraska supreme court in july of 2012, affirming the appeals courts awards to the plaintiffs although modifying the amount of damages. Judge Narragansett could not be reached for comment.

Back to the original article:

"Most people realize that cities must restrict potentially dangerous activities to protect people and guard against costly lawsuits, said Kenneth Bond, a New York lawyer who represents local governments. In the past, people might have embraced a Wild West philosophy of individuals being solely responsible for their actions, but now they expect government to prevent dangers whenever possible.
'It's a great idea on the frontier, but we don't live on the frontier anymore,' Bond said."

At the part where they mentioned "New York lawyer" I  somehow just felt like I was being lied to, and instinctively put one hand on my wallet and the other on my Garand.

That is part of the problem though; progressives from more densely populated states try to use the "old west" rationalization to justify any encroachments on not only individual freedom, but individual responsibility as well. A question though - if it's not a frontier then what are all these carpetbaggers doin' 'round here? Come to edjumacate us hicks on our earth killing sled-risk-takin' ways? To enlighten us about how the collective matters more than the individual? That government is responsible for us in every way imaginable and must protect us from ourselves?

"...[Assistant city attorney Tom] Mumgaard said courts in Nebraska have decided cities must protect people, even if they make poor choices."

Ayup. That's exactly what they came out here to tell us about.

The good news is there is resistance to such efforts:

"In Omaha, the city banned sledding at a popular hill as a test one winter after losing a lawsuit, but decided to allow it again after most people ignored the restriction.
'It wasn't practical,' assistant city attorney Tom Mumgaard said. 'People wouldn't abide by the ban."

 Gee, imagine that - people ignoring a law. I wonder if this could have any implications for gun owners...?

The Wrong People

“The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.

That was from a speech President Obama gave on January 16th of 2013 as he unveiled his plan for new gunowner laws. It is true that an estimated 1.5 million people were denied permission to exercise the Right of owning a firearm during that time frame. But pay attention to what he called them – “the wrong people”. 

Monday, January 05, 2015

Agin Background Check Appeasement

It has come to my attention that there are certain segments of the gun owning community that feel conceding on the issue of background checks is a politically and pragmatically wise course of action. The idea is that since gunowners were outspent in Washington state in the fight over passage of I-594 that such losses are inevitable in other states, therefore if we support some form of universal background check we can reduce the damage done by an I-594-like law. The most prominent proponent of such an idea is Alan Gottlieb of SAF and CCRKBA fame, but he is not alone.

To this notion I must not only say “No”, but “Go to hell no”. Allow me to break it down:

Sunday, January 04, 2015

If You Don't Know Me By Now

I seem to have found myself back on blogger, and having been away for so long I'm not quite certain what all these buttons do. So don't pay too much attention to this post as I'm just experimenting to see what all I can or can't manage. I may or may not try to spruce the place up a bit, but my time is limited and there were a few topics I wanted to touch on so it's possible I'll just try to crank out those and leave the page as it looks now. Or close to it. So, do pardon the mess.

Oh, if you're wondering, I picked the title of this post because the template I went with is a simple red. ;) In case you didn't catch that, I'll post a vid in the extended entry:

Friday, December 08, 2006

Witness Pics

The first target I shot with the new Witness Elite Match in 10mm. This was using American Eagle 180 grain FMJ's which traveled around 1025 fps. The distance to the target was roughly 30 feet.

The second target was shot with handloads. Speer 180 grain TMJ's on top of 8.5 grains of Longshot. They were clocked at around 1180 fps.

Here's another one of the targets hopefully in an easier to see format.

8.9 grains of Longshot pushed those Speer 180 grain TMJ's to around 1240 fps

& this is the first target shot with handloads again.

As I said, er typed it was only around 30 feet because I was mainly trying to chronograph the handloads but the accuracy doesn't seem to be too bad considering I've never been a great pistol shot.

For a more detailed review see Can I Get A Witness Part Two

Friday, August 26, 2005

...So Long As 100 Of Us Can Remain Alive...

On Tuesday, August the 23rd of 2005 Sir William Wallace was honored in a ceremony in the place where he was executed by the English in 1305.

Sir William Wallace was further honored by a few polls over the years:

"Opinion polls in recent years suggest between a quarter and a half of Scotland's 5 million people want the same independence from London which Wallace fought for seven centuries ago."

The man who honored Wallace in the ceremony went further to show his respect:

"Our country is still ruled from somewhere else,' he said, referring to the British parliament. 'It's time the leaders in Scotland woke up and listened to what the people want."

That quote was from David Ross, historian, author, musician & International Convener of the Society of William Wallace. I also recommend looking at his site

700 years ago Wallace was tortured, executed, butchered & scattered because he dared stand up to a foreign king who claimed dominion over his home. Today Scotland is still subject to the foreign land that Wallace fought against. It would seem to me that honoring Wallace would have to entail at least some sympathy for Scottish independence.

Now if the Scots wish to live subject to British Parliament then that's their decision. I'm not a Scot & I would not presume to tell them what to do with their country. But if you're wondering whether I'd support those Scots who wish to live absent the British Parliament my answer would have to be aye.
Oh Good Grief

This is not directly gun related (though I might play a round of "Six Degrees of John Moses Browning").

Gretchen Wilson is being asked by some ass in Tennessee (actually the AG, or Ass, Generally) to stop using chaw (i.e. smokeless tobacky) at her concerts.

"State officials said
Gretchen Wilson can be seen on concert jumbo screens pulling a can of Skoal from her pocket while performing her new song, 'Skoal Ring.'
That may violate the 1998 settlement between states and tobacco companies forbidding tobacco ads targeting young people, Attorney General Paul Summers said."

WTF??? Exactly how does it violate an agreement miss Wilson was not a party to?

"Many young people attend your concerts and purchase your music and T-shirts,' Summers wrote in a letter he sent to Wilson Thursday. 'Because your actions strongly influence the youth in your audience ... I ask you to take steps to warn young people of negative health effects of smokeless tobacco use."

Huh. Well I wonder how many "young people" read papers that have asshatted quotes from the AG of Tennessee? Doesn't that impart a duty on him to remove his head from whoever's orifice it's currently entrenched in? After all, we wouldn't want impressionable young folks to start acting like self righteous controlling statist assholes now would we? I mean aren't there negative effects of participating in such behavior, well other than being accused of being a lawyer? (To all my lawyer pals, nothing personal, but damn - jerks like Summers give the other 2% of ya'll a bad rep).

"The landmark $206 billion tobacco settlement 'provided that advertisements such as this would be and should be prohibited,' Summers said."

Hmmm. I am almost certain that "advertise" was used in the sense of compensating a person or company for the promotion of their wares or services. That would exclude the more generalized sense of advertise (i.e. AG Summers advertised both his ignorance of the law & his disdain for private actions not controlled by the state with his asshatted statements).

"U.S. Smokeless Tobacco does not have an agreement with Wilson or any artists to promote its products, said company spokesman Mike Bazinet. Summers said his office is also contacting the company about the use of its products at Wilson's concerts."

Hmm So Summers, being the astute paragon of legal intellect that he is, is claiming that an agreement between party A (the tobacco companies) & party B (the government) is enforceable against party C (miss Wilson). What a brilliant actionable strategy. I know; next why doesn't he make Smith & Wesson sign an agreement - wait, not Smith & Wesson since some still aren't over the last time they did that - let's get, Col... Damn. I'm running out of untainted firearms makers. Let's get the firearms industry to sign an agreement with the government saying that none of their products will be "advertised" during a crime. That way should anyone use on of their firearms while committing said crime then the AG can write them a letter telling them to stop cause kids are impressionable.


Disclaimer: I don't know miss Wilson. I've heard one or two of her songs but only in parts. I did hear "Redneck Woman" when I was in the Carolinas, but it was performed by my friends in a band called Latitude not by miss Wilson. (In case you missed it the url was for Latitude; Myrtle Beach's finest Beach, Dance & Party music duo - now hopefully they'll stop calling me about that 20 bucks I probably owe them ;D ) Further I don't use Skoal or any other form of smokeless tobacco. I smoke cigarettes with an occasional cigar thrown in the mix. I am not being paid by miss Wilson, Skoal, or any group generally opposed to asshattery in public orifice office holders.

I am a musician though & the idea of the state even having a freakin' opinion on what I do that is not against any law, legit or contrived, is as repulsive as Tipper Gore's explorations into a new special place back in the mid 80's. I don't care if smokeless tobacco is bad for you. I don't care if fast food is bad for you. Nor do I care if language or subject matter is offensive. If you don't wish to be subject to that kinda of thing then don't go to the damn venue where it's occurring. If you don't want your children to be exposed to that kind of thing then don't let them attend the venue where that will be occurring.

I mean bloody hell, what's next? Banning t-shirts or caps cause they have a picture of a firearm? - oh, nevermind. Or perhaps suspending young children for playing cops & robbers at school? Er, nevermind again. Oh surely some places haven't proscribed the spelling of the word "gun" have they? Ayup.

The root of this (& here's how it does come back to firearms, albeit indirectly) is the desire to prohibit things that aren't thought to be proper. Even when things are popularly accepted there are some who would deny those things to others based on their own beliefs. (Temperence anyone?) It's different in specifics for sure, but the base is constant: someone is doing something I do not approve of therefore I will try to get them to refrain. Now acting asan individual I can tolerate a bit of that. But as an individual I can also tell you to go straight to hell & disregard any entreaties to stop whatever my "offensive" behavior is.

Summers is not acting as an individual. He's acting as an agent of the state of Tennessee. He has not told anyone they must stop doing anything, but the weight of the state is presumed to be behind him if he did so. If he wished to voice his concerns to miss Wilson as an individual then it wouldn't be that much of an issue for me. But to use his office to ask someone to reduce or eliminate a legal behavior because he does not approve of such behavior is a subtle yet brutal strike at the notion of a people not controlled by the state.

Sure, smokeless tobacky might be bad for ya, but it is not the states' place to protect us from ourselves. The states' place is to protect us from each other whenever we try to disparage the equal rights of one another. Anything more than that is more dangerous than any substance in a can could ever be.

Considering the title of some of her songs ("Redneck Woman"; "Pocahantus Proud"; etc.) I sincerely hope miss Wilson does not give AG Summers the typical southern courtesy & keeps the Marlboro red between her lips while she tells him to kiss her country fried ass.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Independence Day. The 229th anniversary of a statement of freedom from a government that impeded individual liberty. (Please note: the holiday is called Independence Day. It occurs on the 4th of July. Unless you typically wish people a happy 25th of December or ask if they have plans for the 31rst of December then please try to refer to the holiday by its rightful name. Referencing it by its date belittles the import of it to just another day that you don't have to work & the banks are all closed - thanks.)

Some are unhappy with the way things are yet hopeful. Some othersare unhappy with the way things are & feel dejected. There is a long list of grievences to be unhappy about for sure. Though unspoken as the cause, it's not difficult to speculate on the nature of some folks depression.

I was thinking about making a big long post filled with links to support the greivences I have against the government - or perhaps more accurately the ones it seems to have against me. The links above do a fine job of that, even if they're somewhat understated. Instead I'll point you to this post on Patriots' Day; this one about the Mecklenburg Declaraion of Independence & the Mecklenburg Resolves; this one on The Declaration of the Causes & Necessities of Taking Up Arms (No Quarters has more on the Document that We Forgot); this one on Independence Day; & this one on Bill of Rights Day. I'll also point you to The War on Guns' Patriots Day post as the pictures sum up things too accurately. Tell Me How Do I Get To My America? is another one I'd ask you to glance at. & it will be much worth your while to visit this post of IsThatLegal's where an Independence Day speech by then AG (soon to be Supree Court justice) Robert Jackson is transcribed.

Today is not a happy one for me. I think of my state & the Republic which she is a member of & I find little comfort or cause for celebration. I won't wax dramatic on you about it but I will say that I have little or no faith in the government & not much more in the people. Churchill said that it's good for an uneducated man to read a book of quotes. I admit I have found this to be good advice for myself at least. Sometimes words from others give solace & comfort to a troubled soul. I will leave you with some excerpts of folk more sober in thought & spirit than I am currently.

"Suppose two-thirds of the members of the national House of Representatives were dumped into the Washington garbage incinerator tomorrow, what would we lose to offset our gain of their salaries and the salaries of their parasites?" - H L Mencken

"It is the fundamental theory of all the more recent American law...that the average citizen is half-witted, and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts." - H L Mencken

"A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar" - H L Mencken

"It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men." - H L Mencken

"The argument that capital punishment degrades the state is moonshine, for if that were true then it would degrade the state to send men to war... The state, in truth, is degraded in its very nature: a few butcheries cannot do it any further damage" - H L Mencken

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights" - H L Mencken

"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods" - H L Mencken

"All government, in its essence, is organized exploitation, and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well-disposed man" - H L Mencken

"The ideal government of reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone" - H L Mencken

"It is the theory of all modern civilized governments that they protect and foster the liberty of the citizen;it is the practice of all of them to limit its exercise, and sometimes very narrowly." - H L Mencken

“The average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenth’s imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty--and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. It is, indeed, only the exceptional man who can even stand it. The average man doesn’t want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” - H L Mencken

"Anything that is moral for a group to do is moral for one person to do" - R A Heinlein

"No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. He simply follows the eleventh commandment" - R A Heinlein

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects" - R A Heinlein

"Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not insure 'good' government; it simply insures that it will work. But such governments are rare; most people want to run things but want no part of the blame" - R A Heinlein

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do" - R A Heinlein

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it" - Ayn Rand

"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." - Ayn Rand

"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims" - Ayn Rand

"Evil requires the sanction of the victim" - Ayn Rand

"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master" - Ayn Rand

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws" - Ayn Rand

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" - Ayn Rand

"Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off" - Ayn Rand

"Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property" - Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law" - Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)" - Ayn Rand

"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time" - Sir Winston Churchill

"It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required" - Sir Winston Churchill

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government" - Alexander Hamilton

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual" - Thomas Jefferson

"Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?" - Harlan Carter

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood . . ." - James Madison

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

For a few more quotes look here.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

this is an audio post - click to play

Note: I use this site for initially posting audio stuff. My written posts can be found at

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

Just an update to remind everyone that the new blog can be found via this link. (& to keep the blogspot site open in case a back up is ever needed.)

Monday, April 19, 2004

We're moving. Pixy has graciously offered space over at for Publicola & we're going to give it a go. As far as I know this site will still be here & accesible, but the new posts will be at the new site (makes sense doesn't it?).

The new address is

It'll take a few days to a few weeks to get everything in order over there, but the new posts will be there as of today.

Sunday, April 18, 2004

Cheney spoke at the NRA convention on Saturday. Kerry made a statement prior to Cheney's address. Tom Mauser (father of a victim at Columbine High School) was denied entrance to the NRA convention despite his literally wearing his murdered son's shoes. Here's the article from which the following fisk is based.

"PITTSBURGH - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) portrayed President Bush (news - web sites) and himself as champions of the Second Amendment ?— and Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) as a potential threat to gun owners ?— in a speech at the National Rifle Association's 133rd annual convention Saturday."

Oddly enough, if I portray myself as cantaloupe that does not make it so. Champions of the Second Amendment? Not the one I've been reading all these years. Perhaps he should have portrayed himself & Bush as champions of the 2nd Amendment with reasonable exceptions.

"John Kerry's approach to the Second Amendment has been to regulate, regulate and then regulate some more,' Cheney said, citing votes against legislation that would protect gun makers from lawsuits and in favor of allowing federal authorities to randomly inspect gun dealers without notice."

& Bush's approach has been to enforce, enforce & enforce so more the gun control laws we have on the books - despite their conflict with that whole "...shall not be infringed..." thing.

"Cheney lauded the NRA for its safety programs and said the best way to prevent gun crimes was to enforce existing laws. Federal prosecutions of crimes committed with guns increased 68 percent under President Bush, he told the crowd."

Funny, the lying bastard didn't mention how many of those laws he seeks to enforce pass constitutional muster. Nor was it mentioned how many of those gun crime prosecutions involved a person or persons with no harmful intent who just happened to possess something verboten or not have their papers in order.

"Bush 'has shown you respect, earned your vote and appreciates your support,' Cheney said."

Bush showed me respect? Earned my vote? Appreciates my support? Damn skippy I'm not included in the "you". Bush has bitch-slapped gun owners, told them eveything'll be okay if they just use a little more make-up to cover the bruise so the family won't talk, & then tells us he's a saint compared to the other abusive pimps out there.

"Cheney did not address the federal assault weapons ban, which expires in September, and which the NRA maintains has been ineffective."

Damn right he didn't address that. Neither would a prudent man discuss his approval of wife beating with his wife right before he takes a nap. Cheney didn't bring it up cause he knows that gun owners wouldn't be able to cling to the "Bush is pro-gun" lie if confronted so directly with his bullshit.

"Kerry, in a statement issued before Cheney's address, said 'most voters don't know that (Bush and Cheney) are standing against major police organizations and breaking their promise to renew the assault weapons ban ?— which helps keep military-style assault weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists."

& Kerry doesn't know that all federal gun control laws based on prior restraint stand against the 2nd amendment of the constitution of the united States. But one good thing about Kerry is that most people see through his bullshit. I don't think anyone - Republican or Democrat - will actually argue that Kerry is pro-gun. But both Republicans & Democrats think Bush is.

"Earlier in the day, Tom Mauser, whose son, Daniel, was killed with an assault weapon in the Columbine High School killings five years ago, tried to enter the convention hall where the NRA was meeting, seeking to urge Cheney to support extending the assault weapons ban. Mauser was turned away by a security guard..."

I do not know for certain Daniel Mauser was Murdered with an "assault weapon" or not. The murderers had a Tec-9 which was mentioned specifically by the "assault weapons" ban, but I never heard if they determined who was killed by what. Since the Tec-9 fires the 9x19mm cartridge it is very possible that he was killed by either that particular weapon or a pistol chambered in that cartridge. I seriously doubt Mr. Mauser recognizes the problems with ballistic matching of a projectile to a particular firearm, but it is possible that the Tec-9 was the only 9mm weapon they had, or that the rifling differed significantly from the pistols they may have had.

In any case Mr. Mauser doesn't seem to grasp that the "assault weapons" ban did not prevent two deranged people from committing a horrific act of murder. Neither does he realize that since they were prepared to break the laws concerning murder, possession of weapons & explosives on school grounds & a host of other laws that the AWB probably wouldn't have made them alter their plans.

Mr. Mauser also does not realize that the problem wasn't the instruments used - it was the people who were using them. Daniel Mauser would be just as dead if they'd have used muzzle-loaders. In fact if you average the number of people killed or wounded at Columbine from the time they started shooting until the time they presumably killed themselves you'll find that the rate of fire was under 3 rounds per minute per murderer. That's a little slower than the Minutemen were expected to accomplish in the 1770's. So "assault weapons" didn't enable the murderers to do anything they couldn't have done using230 year old technology & techniques.

But Mr. Mauser is a sad case. I cannot fathom the pain he went through in losing his son & feel a great amount of pity for him because it has warped his logic.

"Mauser, who marched three blocks to the convention hall literally in his son's shoes, said before the march that continuing the ban would be common sense.
'What is the useful purpose to these weapons? ... They are the weapons of gangs, drug lords and sick people.' Mauser said. 'It is a weapon of war and we don't want this war on our streets."

They are also the weapons of freedom fighters, of people who will be free & of people who will not be forced to give up that freedom even to their own government. A sick person is not one who espouses the ownership of arms, but one who thinks that through a law the good as well as the bad will give up their arms & leave peaceably forever. It is further evidence of sickness that a person thinks that I & others such as myself will acquiesce to a law demanding us to give up our arms without first enduring the war in our streets that Mr. Mauser claims is a bad thing.

"Mauser called the NRA 'an organization with a Field-and-Stream-magazine membership but a Soldier-of-Fortune-magazine leadership."

Ya know, I keep hearing about this radical leadership in the NRA. Where the hell are they & who the hell are they?

I'm tired of everyone getting it backwards: the NRA membership is typically more pro-gun than the NRA leadership. If you presented detailed questions to both, I think you'd find that it's the leadership who are in favor of gun control far more than the members.

But some of this is starting to leak out in the mainstream press. This MSN video touches on that. Angel Shamaya of is interviewed & has some pretty harsh (well for him mild) words for Bush's support of the AWB. However you should keep in mind that the press is mainly interested in this angle because it's anti-Bush.

I have no problems with airing grievances against Bush - as long as the grievances are based on substantive issues instead of a general bias. If you want to trash Bush on his record or his views then I can understand that. But the bulk of the opposition to Bush is based on either a personal dislike of him (he's uneducated; he has no tact, etc...) or a misunderstanding of him (he's shrinking the government too much; he's too pro-gun, etc...).

The video has a couple of interesting thing sin it;

First of all they reporter says the NRA has launched its own news network to "get around" campaign finance laws. That's like saying a person joined the military to "get around" federal firearms laws. The NRA started its own news network simply because that was the only legal avenue left to them to get their message out in the months prior to an election. It'd have been real nice if the reporter had mentioned the constitutionally questionable nature of those campaign finance laws (yes I know how SCOTUS ruled - they were wrong) but since reporters are immune to those same laws I doubt she was aware. After all if it doesn't affect a reporters livelihood it couldn't violate the 1rst Amendment could it?

Next we have LaPierre saying that gunowners know the difference between Bush & Kerry on the 2nd Amendment. What difference? What freakin' difference is there between a man who calls them reasonable regulations & a man who calls them common sense gun laws? One fakes to the left while the other fakes to the right but they both try an end run around the constitution. Now I have no doubts Kerry would be a messed up president, but I don't think he'd be much worse than Bush. Their methods would differ but they'd both be the wrong methods to achieve the wrong goal. But focusing strictly on the firearms issue I see abo-freakin'-lutely no difference between Bush & Kerry.

"President Bush's support of the "assault weapons" ban is an embarrassment. He should hang his head in shame." A bit harsh you say? Those were the words of Angel Shamaya. Considering the source I'd think it was on the mild side. Honestly I'd expect Mr. Shamaya to start talking about tar & feathers, but perhaps he did & the reporter thought it best to not air that portion of the interview.

In the introduction to Mr. Shamaya's statement the reporter said his website ( has "tens of thousands of followers" (emphasis mine). First I'd be surprised if didn't have a hit count of 6 digits, but I suppose that it could be in the 70 to 80 thousand range. But does it strike you as odd that a web site & political organization has "followers'? I can understand "members" & I could understand "visitors" but "followers"? Maybe I'm just reading too much into it but it seems like the reporter was trying to subtly plant the idea that you should equate the people who visit with a religious group. After all, the word "followers" is rarely used unless you're talking about a cult of some sort. The NRA has "members", not "followers". Jim Jones had "followers". But as I said perhaps I'm just reading too much into it.

Just for laughs pay close attention to the segment of Kerry with the side by side & orange vest. I'd be hard pressed to find a better visual for "Fuddite".

It goes on to say that most NRA members are supportive of Bush. The two people interviewed to support this statement never said they support Bush wholeheartedly; rather they feared Kerry would be worse than Bush.

Don't be fooled - the only reason the mainstream media is airing this story &/or others like it is not to spread the truth but to garner opposition against Bush. They don't care if he's pro or anti gun as long as they can use it against him. But despite their ill intent the word is getting out. It'd be a beautiful thing if Bush did a turn around & started being actively pro-gun, but the skeptic in me doubts that will ever happen. What I do think is possible is for the election to send a message to the Republicans that the half assed approach to being pro-gun (i.e. relying more on reputation than action) isn't going to cut it. But that's real difficult when the NRa leadership is constantly being called extreme.

Just out of curiousity if the leadership of agroup who supports every federal gun law on the books is consiered pro-gun in the extreme, then what would I be labeled as? Extreme extreme? ultra extreme? Uber-extreme? Course if you're thinking that most of the mainstream press couldn't even imagine people with my beliefs exist let alone label them, then you're probably correct.

Thursday, April 15, 2004

I can't say I wholeheartedly agree with David Kopel on everything although I must confess I'm more in agreement with him than Ted Kopel. But over at the High Road someone linked an article Mr. Kopel & Stephen D'Andrilli wrote in 1990 about Switzerland & its militia system. It's called The Swiss & G U N S ~A Success Story~. It's a bit dated as some changes to the gun laws in Switzerland occurred in the 90's. In fact the Swiss pro-gun group Pro-Tell is busy fighting these efforts as we speak. But the bulk of the article is correct in its assessment of Swiss firearm laws.

Now here's something to think about:

"Indeed, the militia is virtually synonymous with the nation. 'The Swiss do not have an army, they are the army', says one government publication. Fully deployed, the Swiss army has 15.2 men per square kilometre; in contrast, the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. have only .2 soldiers per square kilometre. Switzerland is 76 times denser with soldiers than either superpower. Indeed, only Israel has more army per square kilometre."

I'd venture to guess that only certain parts of the American South & Southwest could even begin to approach that kind of coverage by the militia. If I'm looking at the correct conversion table (hey - it's late) a square kilometer is 0.3861 square miles, & a square mile is about 640 acres. So the U.S.A. figure mentioned above would equate to (if my calculations are accurate) about 2.5 soldiers per square mile. Now a mile is 1,760 yards so at the dead center of a square mile you'd have 880 yards in all directions (actually a little more than that in the corners). That's along way to shoot. But throw in the other man & a half & you could cut it down to something a bit more reasonable - say just shy of 600 yards. Now for a rifleman with a rifle that'd be no problem, but for a soldier with an M16...let's just say I'm not optimistic. After all, no matter how good Hank Aaron was ain't no way in hell he could've hit anything in a meaningful way if he substituted his Louisville Slugger for a flyswatter.

But the Swiss can field 38 men per square mile. That's a man for every 16.8 acres. They'd be spaced so close together that they could effectively cover each other with rifled muskets!

Now Kopel & D'Andrilli don't take into account the U.S. militia which would boost our numbers a bit. But probably not by that much. If someone tried to invade Switzerland almost the whole citizenry would show up to stop them. In the U.S. we'd expect the Marines & Army to show up & do something. But the average citizen for years & even decades has been bombarded with the idea of letting the professionals handle things. Hell, lowly peasants often get arrested for shooting criminals in self defense or merely partrolling private land on the borders. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear a chorus of "let the Marines handle things - that's what we pay them for" echoing through the countryside if anyone ever tried to invade the U.S.

In Texas, the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Colorado, New Mexico & Arizona I'd expect a little more turn out than average but only in the rural parts of those states. Any state with a medium to large urban area (i.e. a big city) can almost write that part of the state off. This isn't so much because people in big cities are cowards but rather they've been indoctrinated so long into government dependence that it'd be difficult to get them to change their views in time to do any good. The rural areas of every state won't have the same mindset as most rural folk are used to doing for themselves - well at least to a greater degree than their citified brethren.

Another reason is that in urban centers (i.e. big cities) gun control is usually more strictly enforced. That means the confidence that comes with developing skills in arms will be lacking & create another psychological barrier. & that's not even dealing with the issue of having arms in the first place. After all, would you feel positive about repelling invaders when your most potent weapon is a bottle filled with gasoline & a lighted rag? I'd like to think the city dwellers in D.C., Chicago, NYC & other places where possessing arms is legally difficult to impossible ignore those laws, but I can't see more than 10% or so being armed with anything more than a small pistol.

The Geek With A .45 touched on a related subject in a post of his a few days back. His focus was on gun control laws on the federal level being harmful to small arms development that is essential to national defense. A few months ago I wrote about an article on the National Matches & their relationship to national defense, or more specifically how the government has been withdrawing its support of this important primer for national defense. But as important as those two issues are to address I feel they are insignificant compared to the one I'm talking about now, which is an apathy on the part of the populace. After all, if we could buy newly designed & manufactured machine guns over the counter & the government was actively involved in civilian matches as it once was it would accomplish very little if the majority of people simply looked to the government to protect them.

Pay attention over the next week or so to the news & other forms of mass communication. In newspaper articles, news stories, billboards & magazine ads & articles you'll see that anytime the public's role is mentioned in anything its merely to be a good witness &/or informant. No cop has ever said (in recent times at least) for a citizen to get directly involved in preventing crime. Illegal aliens crossing on your land? Call the cops. A little old lady getting her ass kicked? Call the cops. Someone's being gang raped in the alley beneath your window? Call the cops.

What this message is doing is conditioning the populace to not getting directly involed. It's taking them out of their proper place in society a sparticipants & making them mere spectators. Now I'm not saying you should go out on "patrol" every night looking for drug lords & pimps to place under citizens arrest. But if you see a person getting beaten up & robbed, even if its by the cops, you should try to intervene if you can. Yes, it's risky as hell; you don't know if the attacker will turn on you or just run away. But here's the thing - that attacker whom you let get away because you feared for your own safety could very well be the attacker your wishing someone will save you from 3 weeks from now. Or worse: he'll be the one who beats up &/or kills your wife or daughter or son 3 weeks from now. C'mon - didn't you watch Spider-man? He let a guy go because he didn't want to get involved & that same guy ended up killing his uncle. There's a message in that which most people seem to ignore: if you tolerate someone you don't know being mistreated then don't be all shocked when it happens to someone you care about.

That's one of our problems as a society: we do not want to get personally involved. If we won't get involved when crime threatens our community, then what makes you think it'll be different if an invasion threatens out community? Do you think the Jews in Hitler's Germany just accepted their fate? Do you think they were all pacifists up till the very end? No, it was conditioning that made them too susceptible to inaction. That same conditioning is present today in the U.S. It's perhaps a bit more varied than what the Jews in Nazi Germany were taught, but everytime you here that "it can't happen here" or "we'd be no match for a modern military so resisting would be futile" I hope you'll recognize it as a modern variant of the reasoning that caused millions of people to allow themselves to be murdered with little if any resistance.

More from the article:

"Since 1291, when the landsgemeinden (people's assemblies) formed circles in the village squares, and only men carrying swords could vote, weapons have been the mark of citizenship. As a Military Department spokesman said, 'It is an old Swiss tradition that only an armed man can have political rights.' This policy is based on the understanding that only those who bear the burden of keeping Switzerland free are entitled to fully enjoy the benefits of freedom."

I can't say that I'd be opposed to something like that over here. Hell, can you imagine the looks on Schumer's, Feinstein's & Brady's face if on election day everyone showed up at the polls with their pistol, rifle & best web gear?

"In 1977, the Münchenstein Initiative proposed allowing citizens to choose social or hospital work over military duty. It was rejected at the polls, and in both houses of parliament (the Bundesversarnmlung's Nationalrat and Ständerat). There are provisions for conscientious objectors, but this group only numbers .2% of conscripts."

& keep in mind Swiss militia service isn't about getting job training or money for college. These people are very serious about defending their country. They want to serve.

"In 1978, Switzerland refused to ratify a Council of Europe Convention on Control of Firearms. Since then, Switzerland has been pressured by other European governments, which charge that it is a source for terrorist weapons. As a result, in 1982 the central government proposed a law barring foreigners in Switzerland from buying guns they could not buy in their own countries and also requiring that Swiss citizens obtain a license to buy any gun, rather than just handguns.
Outraged Swiss gun owners formed a group called 'Pro Tell,' named after national hero William Tell. In 1983, the Federal Council (the executive cabinet) abandoned the restrictive proposal because "the opposition was too heavy" and suggested that the cantons regulate the matter. A few months earlier, the Cantonal Council of Freiburg had already enacted such a law by a one-vote margin. A popular referendum overturned the law the next year, by a
60%-40% vote."

Apperently they want to vote as well. Can you imagine what the press would do if gun owners got off their ass, stopped making excuses for the lesser of two evils & elected pro-gun politicians to repeal gun control laws? Imagine every time a gun control law is passed it gets repealed right after the next election. But imagine is all we can do because gun owners are petrified of Kerry even though Bush isn't all that different on the gun issue.

But go read the rest of the article. It does a good job of explaining the Swiss mindset when it comes to guns & culture. I still think in theory America has the best system going, but in practice the Swiss aren't that far behind, if at all as far as arms ownership goes. Switzerland isn't perfect by a long shot, but if you read your history you'll note that several American institutions were copied from the Swiss. One of those was the militia. It's a shame it's more a part of history for us than anything else, especially when the Swiss seem to be doing well with it after 500 years or so.
At End the War on Freedom I found a rather interesting link: a fellow by the name of Larken Rose has put together a flash presentation called "The 861 Evidence: A Disturbing Exposé of the United States Income Tax System". It takes a while to load & it's rather lengthy but considering the day I thought I'd pass it on.

Monday, April 12, 2004

April 15th. It's only 3 days away so you have to get moving.

No, I'm not trying to encourage you to send your yearly extortion payment to the IRSS; I'm telling you about B.A.G. day.

Aaron the Liberal Slayer came up with this last year. His original goal was for everyone to buy a gun on April 15th just to piss off Michael Moore. Can't say his heart wasn't in the right place with that one, but he decided to shorten it to B.A.G. so it'd be a little catchier this time around.

Unfortunately due to a lack of finances & a recent purchase I won't be able to join in with y'all this year. But that will not stop me from vicariously shopping through you - so if you're undecided on what you want to purchase feel free to drop me a line & I'll give you my $0.02 for free.

But allow me to go over what in my opinion is a complete battery for anyone in the U.S. to have in their gun safe:

First & foremost a .22LR chambered firearm is essential. No, it won't stop a tank with one shot nor will it shoot flying saucers down from a low orbit. It will put food on the table. I've never seen a squirrel or rabbit that's immune to a .22LR. It will also keep pests out of your garden. In a pinch it'll keep the two legged vermin from doing much damage to you (although there are better choices). Most importantly it's cheap to feed. You can still get a 100 round box of decent quality ammo for around $3.50. Three cents a round ain't anything to laugh at & you can find plinking ammo for a bit less than that. But the beauty of its economic friendliness is that for under $10 you can have a nice little practice session. & practice, even with the lowly little .22LR, will help your shooting skills to develop.

As far as which .22LR to get it's hard to go wrong with damn near any well know make of firearm. Ruger makes a superb autoloading pistol as well as a decent single action revolver in .22LR & .22 Magnum. CZ makes a much talked about line of .22LR bolt action rifles. Browning makes fine autoloading pistols in .22LR. Smith & Wesson & Taurus have both pistols & revolvers to choose from. Remington makes a superb line of .22 rifles as does Marlin. But my favorite for a host of reasons is the Ruger 10/22.

Next I'd list the shotgun. In fact if a pragmatist was limited to one firearm a repeating shotgun of some sort would not disappoint. The main virtue of the shotgun is its versatility. By switching the ammo you can have a firearm that propels multiple projectiles or a very large single projectile. It's ideal for close range hunting of damn near any game in North America & is an ideal choice for close range defense against bipedal predators. I would also advise getting a 12 gauge. For the recoil sensitive people out there (& it's nothing to be ashamed of) you can use target loads in your 12 gauge to reduce the perceived kick. If it comes down to it Aguila makes a 1 & 3/4" (as opposed to 2 & 3/4" or 3") shotshell they call the Minishell. They make slug, buckshot & birdshot loads. As you might imagine it doesn't have as much projectile as the longer shotshells but a 7/8 slug or 5/8 ounce of birdshot will get most jobs done that you need done at close range. The big plus is that they generate very little recoil so those who are sensitive to kick don't have to settle for a smaller gauge (not that there's anything wrong with 16, 20 or 28 gauge guns).

Remington makes perhaps the best pump action shotgun available in the model 870. There are other very reliable & very decent pump action shotguns out there but I've always had a soft spot for the 870. One other one I will mention is the Ithace model 37. It's another one of JMB's designs & as such I wouldn't feel slighted with it at all. (For more on JMB look here, here & here.)

Of course being somewhat of a traditionalist I have a big soft spot for double barrel shotguns; particularly side by sides. My grandfather was an avid bird hunter in his youth & the first firearm I ever had any exposure to was his L.C. Smith 12 gauge field grade. Unfortunately it was stolen from him when I was still a teenager. I'm primarily a rifle person so I could never justify spending a grand or two on a long gun that doesn't have any rifling although when I think of the old man & the look in his eyes when he'd tell me about dove hunting with his favorite pointer I'm tempted to sell something & find an L.C. Smith that needs a good home. In the meantime however I'm making due with a rather enjoyable & economical Brazilian side by side imported by Stoeger called the Uplander. I doubt my grandfather would turn his nose up if he'd have been handed one though I'm sure he wouldn't have favored it to his Smith.

But there are automatics as well as single shots & over/unders made by many manufacturers. Depending on your needs finding something suitable won't be nearly as difficult as narrowing the selection down.

Handguns are next on the list. Revolver or auto is strictly a matter of preference. Personally I'm intrigued by the S&W model 610 although I haven't acquired one for various reasons. The steel frame 10mm EAA Witness is another one I've had my eye on. Keep in mind though that the fit & feel of a handgun are the most important things to consider. A gun that fits comfortably in your hand may feel awkward in mine. & recoil that you're comfortable with may cause me to flinch. So try to narrow your choices to handguns that feel comfortable in your hand when you hold it & cartridges that are tolerable when you shoot them.

Now if you're thinking I'm a fan of the 10mm you'd be correct. It's odd because I don't own one & can't honestly say I've ever fired one, but the external ballistics have me hooked. A full powered 10mm load would be ideal for hunting medium to large sized thin skinned game & I wouldn't feel too peevish about carrying one into brown bear country. But the thing that has me most intrigued is that in my opinion the 10mm would make the ideal cartridge for military use. It'd be a much more decisive fight stopper than the 9x19mm & I'd wager it'd be more effective than the much revered .45 ACP. But that's another discussion all by itself.

The important thing to remember about handguns is that their main purpose is to allow you to fight you way to your long guns. So without further ado...

Rifles are what make my world go round. & nothing spins it faster than an accurate rifle. Remington, Browning, Ruger, Savage & many other make brand spanking new bolt rifles that will usually shoot better than you can right out of the box. Those same companies also make fine auto-loading rifles. A few companies even make single shot break open rifles.

But in my opinion there is no finer product offered today than the ones offered by the Civilian Marksmanship Program. They sell government surplus 1903 Springfields, 1903A3 Springfields, 1917 Enfields & M1 Garands. All four rifles are chambered for the .30-06 Springfield cartridge & as such I cannot think of any man or beast in North America that would not be deterred by its judicious use. Now in keeping with the original theme of B.A.G. can anyone think of a way to piss off Michael Moore, Sarah Brady or any others of their particular ilk more than to buy a battle rifle from the U.S. government? I think not.

Another reason to buy the Garand in particular is that it can have 5 (count 'em - 5!!!) of the features that make a semi-automatic firearm into an evil "assault rifle". Reese Surplus has some BM-59 folding stocks that will fit on the Garand. That'd knock out the folding stock & conspicuously protruding pistol grip. The Garand's gas system uses a threaded part on the barrel that will accept a flash suppressor so even if you don't have one that knocks out that requirement. All Garands come with a bayonet lug - it's part of the gas system. & finally Numrich Gun Parts among others offers grenade launchers for the Garand. So all 5 of the evil features can be on your rifle at the same time. The only thing lacking is the "high capacity" detachable magazine.

One rifle, sold to you by the government that can have 5 of the 6 features that the hoplophobes feared so much they sought to make them illegal. I'd say that alone would be reason enough to buy a Garand. Of course I am of the opinion that the Garand is the finest piece of machinery available, so forgive me if my bias shows.

But just as important as the platform you select to launch projectiles from are the projectiles themselves. Or more precisely the cartridge. If you only want one or two rifles in your collection then a general purpose cartridge such as the .30-06 or .270 Winchester would be what to look for. But if you don't mind having two or more cartridges in your ammo locker then I'd say there are three areas you'd want to focus on: a small bore, a medium bore & a large bore. Now keep in mind these are all dependent upon your needs: I'm only offering an opinion.

For a small bore I'd look at one of the medium velocity .22's such as the .223 or the .222 Remington Magnum. They're not the fastest out there but they're close enough to give good performance without the decreased barrel life offered by the .220 Swift or the .22/250 Remington. & I'd prefer a decent bolt action but I wouldn't be opposed to an accurate autoloader since these cartridges would be limited to target shooting & varmint hunting. So don't misunderstand - I am not telling you to get an AR-15 for defense from anything other than prairie dogs. A decent variable powered scope would be a must no matter what type of rifle as the targets are often small & far away, but occasionally closer than you'd need a 14x scope for.

I also wouldn't discount the .243 Winchester or some other 6mm cartridge to bridge the gap between a small bore & medium bore. Truth be told for deer (not elk) & varmints a .243 is pretty close to ideal as long as you use the appropriate bullet weights for the game you're hunting.

For a medium bore I'm all set with the .30-06 Springfield. But the .270 Winchester, .280 Remington or any of the .30 caliber magnums would work just fine. & almost any action type will work depending on your needs. Bolt actions have a reputation for accuracy, but I've seen Garands that will shoot 1 inch groups at 100 yards.

For a large bore I'd look somewhere between the .338/06 & the .375 H&H Magnum. Personally I don't see a need for anything larger than the .375 H&H for any North American game, although if I were in Alaska amongst the grizzlies I might consider revising my standards considerably. But for me a .35 Whelen would be about ideal for anything that could be hunted. This has nothing to do with the fact that Garands can be chambered in that particular cartridge. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

If you plan to hunt in Africa then that's a whole ?nother ball game. I'm sure there's a host of people that could give more accurate detailed advice on which cartridges are best for Cape buffalo & other dangerous quadrupeds. But feel free to ask & I'll try to point you in the right direction.

I'd be remiss in not pointing out that the pistol caliber carbines such as the Ruger PC4, High Point carbine & M1 carbine fill a very unique, if somewhat limited niche & they'd be worth considering. Also the cheap surplus rifles aren't a bad idea especially for those on a budget. The SKS in 7.62x39mm, Mosin-Nagant in 7.62x54R, & 98 Mauser in 8mm can still be found relatively cheap.

So to sum it up I think everyone should have a .22LR (either handgun or long gun but preferably both), a shotgun, a centerfire handgun, & at least one rifle.

I regret that I won't be able to make any new (or used) purchases this week but by all means let me know if you do. Hearing from a reader who buys a firearm isn't quite as good as getting one myself, but it's definitely the next best thing. Thanks again to Aaron for not only coming up with the idea but for doing a lot of footwork on its behalf.

So do him, me & yourself a favor - go buy a firearm on the 15th.

Tuesday, April 06, 2004

The Volokh Conspiracy, Instapundit & Kim du Toit along with a few others are talking about the number of dissenting judges & the intensity of their dissents in 2nd amendment cases. What seems to be of interest are the dissents in Nordyke v. King. Of particular interest is that Justice Kozinski concurred with the majority opinion to deny an en banc hearing. This is the same Justice Kozinski who wrote a passionate dissent in Silveira v Lockyer & wrote the majority opinion in U.S. v Stewart(which stated that privately manufactured machine guns do not affect interstate commerce & therefore can't be used as a basis for NFA prosecutions).

I am simply not heartened by the dissents. their intensity is admirable & many good points are made in them, but they are still an underwhelming minority. The main reason I'm not as optimistic is that despite their personal feelings all these judges are bound by precedent. Justice Kozinski is arguably the most outspoken supporter of the Right to Arms on the federal bench today, yet he has denied 2nd amendment claims because he was bound by previous rulings of the court. He even concurred with the majority in Nordyke for what he deemed "prudential considerations".

If you haven't read "Game Over, Man. Game Over." by Kevin of The Smallest Minority then please do so. It sums things up quite nicely.

What we have is a judiciary that keeps building on very bad decisions even when the judges disagree with those decisions. Some will say this is a triumph of the rule of law or the impartiality of the courts. I disagree. I'm more inclined to say it's a sign of failure of the rule of law & shows the bias of the courts.

The rule of law is a very simple idea: a ruler is bound by the law just as the common person is. In this country we have a pecking order as far as the law goes. Deference must be given to the federal constitution when a conflict arises between it & a federal or in some cases a state law. The main purpose of the federal constitution is to place limits on government authority. What the courts have been doing with regards to the 2nd amendment is not to make the common folk & government equals in the eyes of the law but to side with the government against the common folk despite the constitutions limitations on government. They have done this through exercises in acrobatics of logic that are at times quite astonishing.

This demonstrates not only their personal prejudice in the matter but a deference to the government rather than the constitution. When a judge who openly agrees that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right feels compelled to abide by a system that whittles all the substance from said amendment he is not acting impartially. What he's doing is showing deference not to the constitution but to the courts.

You might disagree with my view on this. A very good argument could be made that without the system of precedent that the courts have long honored we'd have judicial activism of the worst sort. But I fail to see how that would be any worse than a system in which a man must forsake common sense & his oath to defend the constitution (assuming judges are still sworn in with an oath that affirms such) because he is verboten to rule against the government (i.e. the courts).

Let me make this clear - the judiciary is a branch of government. Some will say that the courts are not swayed as easily by politics & other factors which seem to drive the legislative & executive branches, but supposing that's true they are still swayed by considerations other than what their original purpose was: protecting the people.

Courts were instituted so that the ruler would be seen as fair in matters that directly effect the people. A murderer could not be summarily executed w/o a trial to determine if he was in fact a murderer. Similarly a person could not be punished for refusing to abide an unlawful act on the part of the government. (& yes I realize this is a rather simplistic explanation but bear with me as I'm a bit rushed.) For these reasons the courts were viewed as a good idea as a way to impose fairness on a government which by its very nature is unfair.

In our system the constitution is supposed to be the highest law in the land. No law that conflicts with the constitution is supposed to be upheld as valid by any court. In this way the courts are supposed to check the excesses of the legislature which in most circles are a recognized & unavoidable part of a legislative system.

But now it seems the courts are (& have been for some time) bending over backwards to explain why the laws which seem unconstitutional on their face are in fact quite constitutional. As many others & myself have said the lengths some courts have gone to in order to justify laws they approve of despite conflicts with the constitution are simply amazing.

But what discourages me is not so much that the courts are doing this, but that even judges who see this as blatently wrong are going along with it. Sixty four years of bad precedent is more compelling to them than their own conscience. That to me is the main source of my discouregment & disgust with the courts.

Some have opined that for reasons similar to what I stated above that we should be glad that a lot of 2nd amendment based cases are not heard by the higher courts. The idea being that until the courts are more favorable we should thank judges who vote against hearing such cases. & this I disagree with as well.

There is simply no practical effect that a Supreme Court ruling would have as far as the 2nd amendment goes unless it reversed those 64 years of bad precedent. If they sustain a federal courts ruling in whole that the 2nd amendment means the states have a right to a militia but individuals have no right to arms, then what difference will it make? Since the Supreme Court hasn't heard a direct 2nd amendment case in the last 64 years the district court rulings are binding on all lower courts. In other words the practical effect is the same whether the Supreme Court upholds a bad ruling or they simply refuse to address it.

This is because all federal district courts have promoted a collective rights view of the 2nd amendment. The 5th Circuit is the only notable exception & as yet hasn't been tested in their district. Considering the lengths judges have gone to in order to refute the meaning of a constitutional amendment I have no doubts that the 5th Circuit ruling in Emerson will be worked around in some fashion. Perhaps by a direct reversal or possibly even by stating that the 2nd amendment shouldn't have been addressed & the opinion concerning it was merely dicta (which is part of an judicial opinion that holds no legal weight). & as the recent Parker v DC demonstrates the 5th's view of the 2nd amendment is not seen as persuasive by other districts.

& you must remember that in Emerson the court did say that the 2nd amendment protected an individual right, but it was subject to reasonable government restrictions. To me there is little if any practical difference between the "collective right" view & the "reasonable government restriction of an individual right" view. It all revolves around what is considered reasonable & given what I've seen of the courts I'd wager that their idea of reasonable is a lot closer to Sarah Brady's than mine.

I wish I could share the optimism expressed by some, but for the reasons stated above I cannot put any more faith in the judiciary than I can in the legislative or the executive branches of government.

Friday, April 02, 2004

A decision was made in Parker v D.C.: the 2nd amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own or possess arms unless it is directly related to service in a state militia, therefore D.C.'s firearms laws are valid.

Again we see a court take U.S. v. Miller & misinterpret it. Then they cite 60+ years of circuit court decisions that also misinterpret Miller. & on top of that they claim that since the Supreme Court has not reviewed Miller or any direct 2nd amendment cases since Miller that the highest court in the land must approve of the interpretation of Miller.

They do spend a little time downplaying the 5th Circuit's decision in U.S. v. Emerson. Well downplaying isn't the proper description: they explain why they feel Emerson was an incorrect decision based on precedent as well as reasoning. I thought that was interesting since Emerson is the only circuit court decision issued recently that would support an individual as opposed to a collective right. & perhaps even more so because the Emerson decision was a 5th circuit matter: not binding on any other circuit. Yet the D.C. court went to some trouble to argue against it.

The court explained in some depth that a person had to be sanctioned by the state to qualify as a member of a militia. They reasoned that a militia must be trained & organized by the state & subsequently that enrollment in such a militia is the only means of claiming to be part of the militia. In other words, they suggest that unless you are actually on a roll of a state's militia then you're not a member of the militia. This despite the evidence presented in Miller that the militia was composed of all capable people within certain a certain age frame.

But the D.C. court held that since the plaintiffs raised no argument that they were members of a militia that they had no claim under the 2nd amendment & ruled against them.

Kevin of The Smallest Minority has a post up entitled "Game Over, Man. Game Over." that has more than a little relevance to the situation with the courts generally.

Parker is further proof that we have no redress in the courts. The only thing that could alter my view of that would be for the Supreme Court to hear & reverse the findings in Parker or a similar 2nd amendment case, but they've been ducking the issue since 1939 & I doubt they'll grow a conscience & courage at the same time.