Armed Canadian

If Terminator Was Made Today...

2008-05-16T07:59:00.000-07:00

The original Terminator was on regular TV last night. As I like the series and consider the original Terminator to be a great movie, I put it on to listen to while I blew up pirates in Eve Online.

I'm trolling through the Maryland Shooters Forum and there is a discussion thread on this. It turns out times have changed. Terminator could not have been made today. Too many "feel good" politically correct gun laws today. Our poor Terminator would have been disarmed for his own good!

The scene is the in the gun shop with the Terminator looking to equip himself for his mission of retroactive abortion.

1985:

Terminator walks into the gun store and the owner ask what he can get for him. Colt Longslide in .45. Then he asks for the Uzi 9mm. The gun store owner replies, "You sure know your weapons, buddy.". Then asks, "Anything else?".

"Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.".

"Hey, just what you see, pal." the gun shop owner replied before the Terminator loads a shotgun and kills him.

Setting aside the morality of an amoral killing machine killing a gun dealer, look at the time period. Has the Terminator been a citizen or legal resident, he could have bought all of those guns (save for the 40 watt plasma rifle, that would have been Class III NFA) cash-and-carry once the paperwork was done. In California.

Here's how that scene would play out if this was Terminator 2008 courtesy of trbon8r on the Maryland Shooters Forum:

2008:

Terminator: "I'd like an Uzi carbine."

Gun Store Owner: "Sorry the Uzi was banned back in 1989 under the Roberti-Roos Act."

Terminator: "Ok, give me AR-15."

Gun Store Owner: "Sorry, the AR-15 was banned under bill SB-23 in 1999."

Terminator: "Give me Ruger Mini 14 with 30 round magazine."

Gun Store Owner: "Sorry buddy, 30 round magazines are prohibited by law. I can sell you one of these here 10 round aftermarket mags, which is the highest capacity allowed by law. They may jam the gun up once in awhile, but that's all I've got. By the way, there will be a 10 day waiting period on the Ruger."

Terminator: "I need a Les Baer 1911 .45 ACP Longslide."

Gun Store Owner: "Sorry buddy. Can't help you there. There aren't currently any Les Baer longslides that have been certified for the CA drop test."

Terminator: "Ok I'll take a regular 1911."

Gun Store Owner: "Sorry pal, you really are S.O.L. today. We just sold our last standard length 1911. Because of the new law that requires all pistols to have a magazine disconnect, we aren't sure if we will be getting any 1911s in again. Technically the older guns should be grandfathered in, but CAL DOJ has all us dealers scared shitless with their random inspections. No one knows what's legal and what isn't. They just closed down my buddy's shop across town. That makes me one of the last dealers in the L.A. area except for that one crappy chain store with the retards behind the counter. How about a nice Raven .25 auto? Oh crap, that's right Raven is out of business and their certification for the drop test lapsed, so I can't do that one either."

Terminator: "Forget it, it's too much trouble. I'll just go steal a gun out of the unlocked FBI van I saw parked down the street."

How times have changed! Sad part, it's all true. Poor Terminator.

They've Found Me Out

2008-05-15T08:26:00.000-07:00

It's always fun to check the referrer logs. Had a couple of interesting entries show up yesterday.

I can only hope it was from Senator Obama's office. I am sure they were not amused. Thankfully, political satire is protected speech.

And the second:

Well, well, well. It seems that the Brady Campaign has found out about my little revelation about the loophole they've ignored. Perhaps my words or reference to that entry will find their way into their deceitful propaganda as paid shilling for the gun lobby and they'll fill it with half-truths and innuendo. I can only hope they'll take the opportunity to add a slam on non-citizens owning firearms freely.

I commented in that post about giving them ideas. Sometimes, prophecies do come true.

The highest honor I could receive from Paul Helmke is pacing his barely affordable office and muttering, "I'm going to bury that Armed Canadian, wait and see.".

I'm in Potomac, Maryland. I'll see you in Annapolis in 2009.

Musings

2008-05-14T14:19:00.000-07:00

I'm a little depressed. Just disappointed at not being in Louisville right now. I would have flown out this afternoon. But I made the right decision and don't regret it. Still, I'm human. I'd like to have been there but my family and home come first. Foster is doing well, by the way. I think we've finally gotten him regulated. We'll know next week.

In wandering the blogs and forums as I do, I sometimes have things pop into my head. One of the things that did was reading yet another post that makes mention of the mighty, evil NRA and its power at controlling legislatures. Usually this power is mentioned by anti-rights people who bemon the fact they can't have the power to control you, what you do and what you can own. In doing so, I realize two things. They are:

1) If they NRA has all of this power and control over the government as the gun control groups say, why don't the gun control people sue them or have them charged for breaking the law? Clearly a group of people bribing and controlling a government would qualify as a crime, right?

and

2) What are these people going to do in a month when the Heller decision comes down against them?

I actually have a prediction for number 2 and it boils down to two words: judicial activism.

I can hear the clarion cries now from the left. It's inevitable. Anything that goes against the idea of a "militia right" is automatically going to be seen as "judicial activism". Remember the golden rule: It's judicial activism if the decision goes against what you believe. Otherwise, it's a fair and just decision representing the will of the People.

Sigh. The Courts have nothing to do with the will of the People and the sooner these nimrods come to that realization, the better our chances of this Republic surviving become. Everything is not a democracy and the Courts are not one for a reason. A Court correcting seven decades of government error and missteps is not judicial activism. It's one of the checks and balances that schoolchildren are supposed to learn about with regards to how our system of government is supposed to function. I'm getting tired of hearing that term and the connotations that come with it.

But time is getting short. The decision will come soon and when it does, the next round of gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands will begin. As with any challenge to a belief system, it is going to take time for these folks to process and incorporate this new reality into their systems. Most will ignore it or downplay its significance. And to a point, that view may be correct. After all, we won't know the significance of the Heller decision until the next case comes along that cites and builds upon it. When that decision comes down and affirms on the basis of Heller, that is when all Hell will break loose.

Having your belief system crumble is never a pleasant thing. For anti-gun people, this will be like when Copernican theory was proven correct. That's about the size of the world view shift they're going to have to endure and deal with. Except this time there will be no trials for heresy and house arrest for those who disagree with them. No power of the State this time to coerce those into submission despite having the media on their side as willing Fifth Columnists. The articles from them alone should be works of arts in cognitive dissonance, to say the least.

I'm starting to think about the anti-gun mindset in the post-Heller era. I think the directions they've been pushing with regards to legislation is one they will continue to pursue. Rather than argue the semantics of the 2nd Amendment and its meaning (Heller puts an end to that if nothing else), they're going to focus of imposing their definition of "reasonable regulation" on the ownership of arms.

I think their long-term goals is to build the boundaries they think should exist and wait to see if they're challenged. Is ammunition microstamping and its attendant costs a poll tax on the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights? Is the requiring of a gun or ammunition license issued by a government for the possession of arms a reasonable limit on an individual right? I think these are the questions and battles we'll be dealing with for years to come.

I think true sea change will occur when Chicago or better yet, New York City get their metaphorical nuts kicked up between their shoulder blades. When state level bans are declared Unconstitutional is when I think the true anti-gun panic will ensue. It has to.

On the flip side, God help us if I'm wrong.

Back the first point in closing, think about it. If the NRA is this all-powerful entity with the powers of the Illuminati, why hasn't the Joyce Foundation backed a civil suit against them to destroy their power? If they really are the front organization for this grand cabal of gun makers, criminals, terrorists and bitter citizens, it shouldn't be hard to prove to a jury of 12 reasonable people and have their ill-gotten gains taken from them and their power broken?

Makes sense, right? I wonder why no anti-gun person ever makes that leap if this is what they believe to be true. I'll have to ask one and see what they say. Too bad I can't ask the intolerant bigots and ideologues on Democratic Underground. I'm sure the answers would be interesting if not particularly insightful or useful. Tough to get a good answer when the primary means of communication is sippy cup Morse code.

Anyhow, here's to a great NRA Annual Convention in Louisville! I hope all the bloggers I read daily like Robb, Sebastian, Uncle, Kevin, Bitter and so on enjoy themselves. Not that my presence was a significant one but putting faces to the words and names would have been nice. Perhaps later this year at GBR III.

Brave new world ahead!

Barack Obama's First 100 Days In Office

2008-05-13T09:50:00.000-07:00

The following is a transcript of a conversation in the Oval Office recorded sometime during the tail end of President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office.

(President Obama is seated at his desk, senior policy advisor Rice has entered to provide Mr. Obama's daily morning briefing)

Obama: Good morning. Here's hoping that things have changed for the better since last week?

Rice: Yes, sir. We've expanded the cordon of the no free speech zone around the White House to 10 blocks in each direction. The protesters now have free reign to express themselves all they want from 9th and K Streets. Unfortunately, sir, we couldn't do anything about the N word on some of their signs.

Obama: Why not?

Rice: It seems that they have some right to place those words on their signs, sir.

(Obama grinds teeth)

Obama: I know there's this First Amendment talk and all that, but there ought to be a law banning some words. Why can't the DC Council make such a law? I think localities have the right to decide their own laws.

Rice: I'll pass that along to Mayor Fenty, sir. I'm sure he'll receive it positively. Especially after that protester last week with a sign with a picture of you and him on it and something about chocolate, Oreos and milk. (Pause). I know, sir, I didn't understand it either.

(Obama gestures to the chair in front of him)

Obama: Please take a seat.

Rice: Thank you, sir.

(Adviser sits down)

Obama: Ok, enough of that. Where are we at?

Rice: Well, sir, we are having some difficulty coming up with the money for you new programs. Although many members of your cabinet are enthusiastic as are many in Congress, there just isn't enough money in the budget to fund the universal health care system you want. It seems, sir, that 250 billion dollars is, in fact, a lot of money. And the Federal budget is pretty much complete for the next fiscal year.

Obama: But the people want it! I have a mandate, after all.

Rice: Yes, sir, I know that. But mandates cost money, Mr. President. If you mandate one thing, another mandate is going to have to give. They just don't know where they're going to get the money, sir.

Obama: There should be plenty of extra money coming in now that we are pushing forward on our tax changes. That 10% tax increase on the rich should give us plenty of money. Won't that cover it?

Rice: No, sir. It seems there has been a lot of angry talk about that right down the street at the Capitol. A lot of your colleagues seem put out by your proposals. I don't understand why though, Mr. President. It seems fair to me.

Obama: I agree. How soon before the changes make it to my desk.

Rice: (Coughs). Uh, probably not for a while, sir. They're still debating the merit of your request.

Obama: (Unintelligble from the President, profanity?) Pastor Wright was right about them. Maybe they really are trying to keep me down.

(Silence)

Obama: Ok, if we can't get the tax increases on the rich, what about other sources of money? What about all this money the military spends? It's not like they need that much anymore now that I've brought the troops home.

Rice: Yes, sir, and the American people are grateful for your courage in doing so. Alas, it seems military expenditures have increased, Mr. President.

Obama: Increased? How so?

Rice: Well, as you say, we aren't spending much on the Army now that the soldiers have been brought home and been downsized. But the Navy and the Air Force seem to be needing more since the Iraq civil war started. Especially since they left behind all that equipment. They said something about it being standard military policy and that it would have taken years to get all the equipment out otherwise. Still sir, it is very strange seeing Shiite militias armed with M-16s and cheering atop US Army Humvees. Not to mention the equipment obtained by the Palestinians. The shutting down of the Department of Veteran Affairs and rolling it under the Department of Health and Human Services, by the way Mr. President, was a stroke of economic genius.

Obama: (Sighs) Thank you. Almost as good service for those who were misguided by the previous Administration but with a massive cost savings. I'm quite proud of that. Anyhow, what is the problem with the Navy and Air Force?

Rice: It's the patrols, Mr. President. It seems the Iraqis have ignored our calls for sitting down, talking things out and coming to a mutual understanding and feelings and developing a plan of action despite our desires for peace and understanding. The amount of violence there has inexplicably increased. Especially towards Israel. I understand that the Jews deserve it, sir, but many in the Government still support them and as a result, the Navy and Air Force have had to maintain forces nearby. That costs money, sir.

Obama: But we need that money for my fairness programs here! Seriously, how much do they need?

Rice: Well, sir, I'd have to ask National Security Advisor Bloomberg for specifics but I think we have three carrier battlegroups there right now.

Obama: What does the Navy need these aircraft carriers for anyway? Doesn't the Air Force have airplanes?

Rice: Yes, sir. But the Navy operates their own planes. They seem to prefer it that way.

Obama: That's ridiculous! I thought the Navy was supposed to defend water, the Army to defend arms and the Air Force to defend air. If the Navy needs air defense, they should call on the Air Force. That would be the right way to do things and save a lot of money. How much are one of these carriers anyway?

Rice: Around 4.5 billion dollars, Mr. President.

Obama: And how many of these carriers do we have?

Rice: Again, National Security Advisor Bloomberg would be better than I at this but I think we have 12 at the moment with a couple more under construction at $8 billion each, Mr. President.

Obama: Well, if we only need three, why not sell off the other nine and cancel the useless construction of the others? It's not like we're going to need them much. I'm sure some of our friends like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela could use them. And if we gave them a deal on them, maybe they'll cut us a deal and help lower gas prices. It's not like we need them now. How much do you think we could get for them?

Rice: I don't know, sir. It depends on how we marketed it, I guess. Maybe 3 billion or so each?

Obama: Hmmm. If we could get 4 billion each, that would be a 20 percent discount. But they'd have to pay cash! None of this incentives and good will crap! Could eBay handle this for us? Start the bidding at 3 billion and set a reserve?

Rice: eBay charges a percentage for that, Mr. President. We'd need a special appropriation from Congress. But maybe we can talk to them and get them to agree to waive the fee. After all, you're the President.

Obama: Great! Get on that. If we can get 5 or 6 of these things sold off plus the savings from the ones we won't need, that'll give us 35 or 45 billion dollars. How much universal health care will that buy us?

Rice: Drugs for the elderly for a year, a free doctor's visit for the homeless and Well Baby appointments for the minority underprivileged, I think, sir. Not much more than that.

Obama: Really? Well, we'll have to do something to raise the rest of the money. What about a windfall profits tax on the health care industry? There's no way a Tylenol, even though I use handmade arugula coated prescription pills myself, costs $9 a pill. They're gouging the working American and the CEOs are running away with their profits rather than passing those savings on to poor Americans! That should raise a lot of money.

Rice: Sir, I might remind you that about the oil windfall profits tax that you encouraged Congress to pass. Gas is $5 a gallon right now.

Obama: The effects just haven't had time to filter down to the American consumer yet. Once they do, the oil companies will have no choice but to pass the savings on or we'll just have to tax them harder.

Rice: Absolutely, sir.

Obama: Ok. Just keep working on it and see what you can come up with. I want to make sure that everyone has equality by this time next year. If the rich other than Michelle and myself have to do without a little more, so be it. I can't believe their audacity in resisting my changes. Don't they realize it is for the common good of everyone and they'll benefit too from having less so others can have more?

Rice: Yes, sir. Shall we continue, sir?

(Obama makes a gesture for him to continue)

Rice: Thank you, sir. Now, on to this issue of gun control.

Obama: Yes, I'm wondering when that bill will be on my desk for me to sign into law.

Rice: Well, Mr. President, it seems we've run into a few snags with that.

Obama: Such as?

Rice: I've gotten a lot of memos from a number of people in Congress and the Senate expressing concerns about your desire to have this legislation passed. They've indicated they're having trouble supporting HR.6666 because of a lot of calls and letters they're getting from their constituents. They seem to be quite concerned that if they support this bill, they're going to lose in the next election.

Obama: But the People want stricter gun control! The majority of them support the common sense and reasonable regulation I am proposing.

Rice: Yes, sir. That may be. However, the majority of the calls Congress is receiving appear to be from the other majority opposing your plan. Rather vocally, I might add, Mr. President. Some were downright hostile even.

Obama: Well, what do you expect from bitter, uneducated, Bible thumpers?

Rice: Understood and agreed, sir. But other than the numerous calls from a variety of people telling you to perform anatomically impossible acts, they seem to be quite united on a couple of points. The main ones being the lack of a so-called "grandfather clause" and the requirement that any banned gun be turned in within 90 days.

(Obama looks bewildered).

Obama: I don't understand. It's not like this is the first time this has been done. They had that ban that expired in 2004 and then they made all these dangerous fully semi-automatic guns in the past four years which wound up on the street and in gangs. I mean, look at all the crime right in this city or back in Chicago! We need to make these bans work and one of the mistakes all these past bans did was let these angry "people" keep these killing machines. Plus, we need to stop making them. My God, have you seen the damage these gun makers have caused in just four years? After 10 years of not making them it's like these guns just appeared out of nowhere!

Rice: Mr. President, you do know that the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban didn't actually ban the making of these guns, right? Only the features that went on them. The manufacturers complied with the law and removed the features as required by the law at the time.

Obama: What? Can't be! It was a ban! How is a ban a ban if the ban doesn't ban anything?!? I thought they were banned! (Adviser shakes head). Which is why I don't understand this "grandfather clause" crap. How can I hope to change anything if I let these people keep these things? They were banned, they should have turned them in! This time, I'm going to make sure they get banned and stay banned and you can tell the Vice President to keep her husband out of this. It was his mistake the first time because he didn't do it right and now this time I have to make it right!

Rice: Yes, sir. But the objections to the bill remain. What do you want me to tell the representatives?

Obama: Tell them we'll get them proper support and people who can explain it to those "people" and make them understand it is in their best interest. They have to realize they are responsible for creating social harmony. That's why I'm here. Hmm, what about those gun experts in Congress and the Senate? Who are they? Hmmm, hmmm. The "Mister and Miss America" woman and that other broad, the "Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" lady.

Rice: You mean Diane Feinstein and Carolyn McCarthy, sir?

Obama: Yes, that's them! And that machine gun guy, the one that banned them 20 years ago. We need him too! He's really good at this stuff.

Rice: Senator Frank Lautenberg, sir?

Obama: That's him. Yes, get those three together and have them hold a press conference. Have them explain all the good that will come out of this reasonable law and how it will change America for the better. If people see the common sense hope in a gun-free country, they'll be able to change their lives audaciously for the better without all this gun violence. And get Ted Kennedy to help them. I hear he's good on getting people to support stuff like this.

Rice: We'll give it a try, sir. Assuming we manage to gain some traction on this issue, we have to discuss your request for information for the next phase if it passes.

Obama: Which is?

Rice: Your request for a list of all these gun owners, sir. Specifically, you wanting the police to go out and get all these sales records to create the list.

Obama: Well, when I said guns would be banned, I meant it. We need a list of these people who have the guns so we can go and get them after 90 days if they aren't turned in as well as a list of guns to match against the ones that are turned in so we know which ones weren't turned in.

Rice: Yes, sir. I agree with you on the reasoning. The problem is the judge won't sign off on it, sir.

Obama: What do you mean?

Rice: Just that, Mr. President. He said that your request doesn't meet some legal standard for probable cause and the strange fact that he said no crime had been committed and thus couldn't comply. In fact, Mr. President (advisor shuffles papers), his reply to your request was rather strange. I've kind of summarized what I think meant it for you but the actual reply was kind of stilted and odd. Ahh, here it is! Here's what he wrote, sir:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

See Amendment IV above as well as 18 USC 962(a), Mr. President. Request denied.

Sincerely,

The Judge

Rice: As I said, Mr. President, very odd language.

Obama: Yes, odd indeed. I wonder why he wrote that? It's very quaint and seems distantly familiar somehow, like out of a history book or something. (Pause). Oh well, I can't remember. Keep pressing. Maybe we don't need an order. I can just order the BATFE to copy the records out by hand if necessary.

Rice: Yes, sir.

Obama: Find another judge if you have to. Anyway, once we have the list and I sign the law, we can order the police to go door-to-door to collect the guns that weren't turned in and arrest those that still have them. We have to make an example out of these terrorist criminals!

Rice: Uh, yes. Yes, Mr. President. On that topic, there has been a lot of private concern about your intentions in this area.

Obama: Like what?

Rice: Well, and I don't mean to sound contrary, Mr. President, but the Supreme Court did rule that Americans owning guns was an individual right under the 2nd Amendment and they did require that strict scrutiny be applied in future cases involving limits to gun ownership. In fact, I know the rate of violent crime within homes here in the District has plummeted by 40% in the past six months. Mayor Fenty hasn't made that public yet, Mr. President. He's still working on the statistics and supporting evidence to make it have the best possible impact, sir, if you know what I mean.

(Obama nods).

Rice: That aside, it seems passage of HR.6666 would conflict with what the Supreme Court has ruled. If I may be so bold, don't you see a problem with that, Mr. President?

Obama: Not at all. After all, that Constitution means what we say and I say this individual right is an outmoded ideal belonging to a bunch of white racist dead men. So it deserves what they got: a dirt filled hole in the ground. I don't understand why these damn Justices misread the Will of the Government and somehow think that I can't put limits on things that are dangerous to people. As long as we pay lip service to that old, obsolete document to keep those folks in West Virginia and Pennsylvania distracted, they won't know the difference. Things are what we mean them to be understood as. It's not like those redneck hillbillies will know the difference, ya know?

Rice: But Mr. President, if you push for this law, the Court may strike it down.

Obama: If they do, we'll just tell them its the law and deal with it. After all, they aren't the police. They don't enforce or pass the laws. The Government does.

Rice: Yes, sir.

Obama: Anything else?

Rice: Yes, sir, one more thing. On this Unity and Peace executive order, are you sure you want to go through with it?

Obama: Of course. Why do you ask?

Rice: Well, Mr. President, it's just, well, you can't really order people to volunteer and be nice to each other and expect it to happen.

Obama: Why not?

Rice: Because they might not do it, sir.

Obama: Why not? They'll do what their told. It for the social good of us all.

Rice: I know, sir. You're right. But what if they won't do it?

Obama: They will. That's what we have the police for. To enforce order. My order, specifically.

Rice: Ah, ok. You're right as usual, Mr. President. I think that concludes this morning's briefing. I need to meet with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to discuss some new training aids for the Army to encourage understanding and reasoning with the enemy or something like that. On a private note, he thinks the ability to doodle cannons on White House letterhead is, and I quote: "Pretty damn neat.".

Obama: Very well. Let me know the outcome of what we discussed and keep me posted. But I want to see results. Remember, it isn't audacious to give the American people what they chose me to give them. If you hope, change will come. America prevails!

Rice: Very good, sir. I'll leave you to more important matters. Good day, Mr. President

(Adviser gets and leaves. Clown and First Lady enter.).

Computers Getting the Clap

2008-05-12T09:15:00.000-07:00

It must be me because I find this absolutely hilarious!

One little-noticed problem that U.S. troops in Iraq face concerns DVDs. Discs bought overseas are often coded to make them incompatible with players sold in the United States. Decoders can get around that, but another hurdle is proving far trickier: the "porno-virus," which is sometimes carried by bootlegged DVDs purchased in Iraqi markets, or "souks". The viruses spread as data and discs are passed among soldiers.

Let me get this straight: In order to avoid STDs by engaging in solo activity, the computers are literally giving themselves real virtual STDs from the porn they are playing?!? Talk about art imitating life. I guess the briefing to the troops on where not to "dip their wick" didn't extend to their computers.

Now if only we could get the machines to spit the DVDs across the room at that "special" moment in the movies...

Some things you just can't make up.

Random Friday Stuff

2008-05-09T09:01:00.000-07:00

Congrats to Breda for getting posted by Buckeye Firearms Association and by the VCDL. That's a worthy honor. I doubt I'll ever be approached to write for either organization though. I was a member of the VCDL while I lived in Virginia though and I respect them highly. Yours truly is a little too caustic and just not good enough for mainstream tastes. Info courtesy of Greg and the accolades are well-deserved!

I've been kicked off Democratic Underground. Again. You know what fascinates me about the place besides the perpetual "train wreck in motion" macabre fascination? The amazing ability of people there to raise intolerance to new levels I previously thought unattainable.

The first time I got booted, I deserved it. Made two mistakes. One, provided a link in a my profile to the blog. Bad move around moonbats. Pretty much sealed the deal in their minds that perhaps I wasn't really willing to consider their progressive viewpoints in light of my libertarian stances in (most) other areas. Usually, this is enough to get you tombstoned. I sorta sealed the deal by calling a local poster a fucking moron. Admittedly, they did deserve it. Still, not nice.

So I went back a couple months later and laid low. No link to the blog, no related name. Played the moderate, reasonable person and simply tried to educate folks on gun issues. I was honest and said I was an independent and support Democratic candidates where appropriate. And this is true. If I lived in Virginia, that is.

I have no issue with many State-level Democrats. My issue is with national level Democrats. Apparently, my honest assessment that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Hussein Obama would be good for gun owners was high treason on DU. If you don't agree with either candidate, you must be a "Rethuglican" plant. Went to post a something a couple weeks later and got the "You have been banned for violating DU rules" screen.

Hmm, they call people who don't think like you "Thugs" and think it's ok and kick me off because I, truthfully, said I didn't trust Barack Hussein Obama on gun rights.

There's tolerance and civil discourse for you.

But I still observe. And what I see, for the most part, are people that desperately want to live in an echo chamber and are filled with rage, spittle and all, at the prospect of someone, gasp, having a viewpoint that may contradict the Great Ideology of the One Perfect Party!

Seriously, it's like watching five year olds sticking their heads in the corner, fingers in ears and saying you can't or hear them because they can't see or hear you.

On second thought, I think that pretty much sums up hard left thinking on most issues.

This attitude will do you very well come 2010 and especially 2012. Kind of hard to convince me some of your issues do have merit when you keep kicking off an independent, issues-based future voter at every turn for having the temerity to disagree with you in a civil fashion. Way to win support to your side there, kids.

What else has a bee in my bonnet this morning?

Haven't been to the range in a while and it is going to be wet tomorrow. I won't be able to make the membership meeting at Quantico. However, they have dropped 7.62x51 from their list of restricted calibers. It seems to be limited to all Commie calibers at this point. At least the .308 NATO shooters are free to practice and enjoy again. From what I've been hearing on this issue courtesy of my kind commenters and in other forums, the problem is due to rounds leaving the ranges and striking Marines outside the boundaries. Suspicion is berm issues involving steel cored ammunition. I figure this will eventually resolve itself.

Driving home last night from work and listening to WTOP and they announced it was Israel's 60th birthday. Happy Birthday, Israel!

I was pleased they took the time to acknowledge it and I'm glad there were no heavy objects in arms reach as they continued because they proceeded to say something along the lines of "But these celebrations were dampened by the fact Israel continues its 41 year occupation of the Palestinian Territories.".

You know, I've checked maps. There is no country called Palestine. There never was in modern times. At best, it was a territory created by the British Mandate after World War I. And until 1967, there was nothing to fight about. The land the so-called Palestinians claim as theirs was, in fact, under the control of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Then these nations decided they didn't like a bunch of uppity Jews next door who had the nerve to fight for their independence in 1948 after they invaded them, actually win and so they proceeded to do something about it.

For those who study military history of the region, we know what happened in 1967. Israel decided it didn't like being invaded on three fronts and decided to press forward towards the now-retreating Arabs capitals to put an end to this conflict once for all.

Then the UN stepped in and said, "No, you can't do that! You must give back the land of these peaceful Arabs and return to your little country! Your actions are unfair! Whine! Whine!".

Israel, in classic fashion, gave the finger to the UN and said, "No, they started it. We ended it. We're going to sit here on the former land of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and maybe they'll think twice about attacking us for no reason again the next time.".

That land came in real handy in 1973 when Egypt and Syria decided to try it again. Very nearly succeeded too. However, the eventually ass-kicking the two peace-loving Arab countries received made sure there wasn't a repeat. In fact, Egypt didn't land from that for five years and when they did, decided that maybe Israel did have a right to exist and stop playing the game of rebuilding their military from scratch every decade.

And still the UN cried about Israel's "aggression" after nearly being wiped out in 1973 by using the land they "occupied" from these very same enemies that attacked them.

Nowhere in all of this do you see any mention of a country named Palestine being "occupied" by Israeli aggression.

I am very annoyed at the media perpetuating this myth of Israeli invasion and occupation of these lands. As far as I am concerned, they earned them fair and square from the invaders trying to destroy them. It's not Israel's fault that these "Palestinians" don't want to play nice and blame the Jews (who bend over backwards for them when they don't have to in humanitarian terms) for their troubles when they should be blaming the government they themselves elected!

Running on a platform of "Blame and kill the Jew" might win you votes at the polling place but it doesn't put food in your family's mouth. Nor does hurling crude rockets against innocent civilians in an effort to convince them you deserve to have "your country" back fill someone with a great degree of confidence of your ability to actual run it in a civilized fashion.

So, Happy Birthday Israel! As far as I am concerned, you ought to turn the lights off and shut off the fuel valves to the West Bank and Gaza in full and let Hamas deal with it. Why should you supply a upstart population who want to steal your land out from under you, put a gun to your head to shoot you and expect you to be thankful for them doing it? Counterbattery fire and subsurface detonations (to collapse border tunnels) work better.

That's it for now. Have a good weekend everyone!

And Now The Unpossible To Be Fought in DC

2008-05-08T13:36:00.000-07:00

Just out from the Washington Post: D.C. to Arm Patrol Officers With Assault Rifles

Yup, here it comes, the now-classic justification:

The D.C. police department plans to give patrol officers assault rifles to protect them against criminals with high-powered weapons.

But, but, but, how can this be?!? Such so-called high powered weapons are already illegal in the District! More to the point, the District classifies any gun with a magazine capacity of 12 rounds or greater to be a "machine gun" and does not permit anyone save the police to possess one.

So how are these criminals getting their hands on such rifles?

In fact, I do believe there has been one shooting involving an AK-47 look-alike. So one shooting announces the presence of a deadly criminal army waiting to wage war on the city police?

Save the hyperbole for someone who believes it. People seriously fall for this crap?

D.C. Council member Jim Graham says he is inclined to support the use of assault rifles, noting that it's a problem when criminals are better armed than police.

Prove it, Mr. Graham. Really. I think someone is going to get a request for further information. A drug dealer carrying a couple of Glocks in his jockeys could be considered "better armed than the police" (only if the cop in question isn't carrying a holdout gun) but I think that's a stretch. One incident does not a trend make.

And lastly...

Police in Prince George's and Montgomery counties say they have seen criminals use more powerful weapons in recent years, and have given officers the option to carry assault rifles.

Really? I hadn't heard anything about shooting rampages involving rifles in either county and I live in Montgomery County. Somehow, one gets the impression the truth is being stretched rather tightly here.

And what does activity in Maryland have anything to do with crime rates in the District? Notice the conspicuous absence of reporting of any similar trends in Fairfax and Arlington counties across the river in Virginia.

Has anyone noticed that this trend seems to be making the rounds with various cities under the justification of trying to reach parity with the very criminals they are supposed to be arresting? Also, have you noticed that this seems to be announced and done in places that have strong gun bans in place on the very weapons they are supposedly trying to counter?

I expect to see this massive spike in the Uniform Crime Report data on firearms next year to account for this militant arming of police in these gun-free paradises.

The Steam of Babbage

2008-05-08T09:41:00.001-07:00

Greg asks "What Makes Your Ears Steam?". I like his example of stupid hippies. But it made me think a little on the way into work this morning and I've come to realize one of the big things that really chaps my ass with people is lazy thinking.

This may not seem to be a big deal until you realize that my day job is writing software. Logic, my friends, is how I pay the bills.

Content alert! What follows is not gun or rights related. It is geekery at its finest. I will not be offended if you stop reading here. Otherwise, proceed gingerly.

Most people aren't familiar with how their computers work. They understand the idea of having programs like Firefox, Office and so on that do different things for them. Send e-mail, write a report, listen to music, games, etc. What most people are far removed from today is how those programs are created.

Even the blog you are reading now is a program. The only difference it is running on a computer somewhere else that is sending the results (this page) to your program (the browser) rather than running solely on your machine. Most understand that software is the same thing as a program.

I write that software. It's what I've done professionally for over 15 years and what I've been doing overall for over 25 years. So this is something I am very intimately familiar with. But to the layman, it is a deep, dark mystery. Sadly, I can only wish software and programming were as cool and amazing as Hollywood makes it look. Trust me, it isn't.

Writing software is extremely detail oriented. If you can't break down a process into its steps, think in terms of abstractions and be able to drill down into figuring out how something works, this isn't a job for you. Software development pays well for that very reason. It's hard. Some people can be taught some of the aspects of it and be functional but they never truly "get it". The ones that do get it are always employed for that very reason.

My personal belief is you have to both taught to think in these terms and be wired mentally to accept them. I do believe that there is a certain amount of natural selection involved in a person's success or failure in this. Some people are just naturally able to pick up certain things better than others.

We're all like this. For example, I like music a lot. I can appreciate and hear the different rhythms and instruments and enjoy how a piece of music is put together. I can get into it. But I can't reproduce it and the few attempts of my trying to learn to play music have been difficult and mechanical. Perhaps I didn't try hard enough even though I can hear what others have done, I don't have the ability to effortlessly do it on my own either in my head or for real. Your ears will probably thank me for that.

Another area is language. I can't pick up another language short of my life depending on it. I've tried that too. Hell, I was forced to. Learned French in school until Grade 10. Was never fluent in it and it never stuck even when I was in the classes. Likewise, I did it by rote and mechanics. I have no innate ability to learn another language. Kind of throws water on my dream of joining the French Foreign Legion especially given I spent 10 years trying to learn French with nothing to show for it beyond "Non parle vous Francais".

In contrast, my fiancee and her Mom are fluent in several languages.

Some people simply can't grasp mathematical concepts. I'm the opposite. Although rusty and no genius in the math realm, the fundamental principles of math that apply to software I picked up easily and early on. If you can grasp basic algebra, geometry and word problems (which many people absolutely despise and do not get), you possibly have the foundation to be able to write software.

So where am I going with this?

I work in corporate software development. What you may not know is the vast majority of software written throughout the world is NOT written to be sold to consumers like you and me. It is written by business to support their operations. You never see it. You hear it. All the time. Anytime you're on the phone with a customer service person and you hear the "click, click, click" of a keyboard in the background, odds are good they are using a piece of software bought or written by that business to help them get their job done.

So the programs that I write are for specific business needs. In this modern world of web sites and blogs, it means I write programs designed to be used through a web browser. Think of Amazon where you select items, view your shopping cart, fill in forms with your shipping and payment information and submit your order. A little while later, you get an e-mail saying "Here's Your Order Confirmation". All of these things are done by programs and it is essentially what I do.

I write the programs that take the forms you fill in and do something with it. Generally, I'll have a requirement from the business that says "We need a program that can do X, Y and Z in the following way using a web browser.". I then go write the programs that make it happen.

The irony of this is, despite the fact I am employed writing web-based software, I don't actually write any web pages (such as this blog's page) myself. Instead, I write the pieces that provide the information that the programmers that write the web pages display. I provide the components that do what we call "the heavy lifting". Talking to databases, organizing data into usable information, making our software do things that mimic what the business does. Trying to make these processes understandable and then hook them all together.

The thing I do best is automating the tedious. You'd be surprised at the number of otherwise decent programmers who write the same type of code over and over again and not see it as repetitive because the data code X was working with was different from that of code Y. This is extremely commonplace in accessing databases. But if you remove the specifics of the data, you'll see that the behavior and structure of the code between the two is very similar.

In software development, we call these "patterns". Over the years, the focus of good software engineering has been to identify these patterns and find ways to capture them and then let them only vary a little bit because of the data or application.

I am very good at seeing repetitive behavior in programs and finding ways to automate or simplify them. The end result of this process is what might have been 1000 lines of code repeated across two or three programs becomes 1200 lines of code written once and 30 or 40 lines of code in each program that the programmer actually needs to know. The rest is written for them and hides away all the tedious messiness of compromise that is modern software that they would have otherwise repeated over and over for no good reason.

As a result, I am the one who sets overall direction for long-term software devlopment within our team and I provide major pieces of the programs other programmers use to assemble their programs. For those of you in the know, I write "middleware".

There are two realities about this job. One, it is a job most people don't want. You aren't writing the web pages that the vice-presidents and the customers see online. The stuff they think is the program really isn't. It's behind the scenes. Unseen, unloved and unknown. Until it breaks (different story then). Otherwise, a life of quiet, ugly anonymity among glamorous fashion models. Who'd want that?

For the reason of the other reality of the job. Despite its unsung nature, properly designed and engineered middleware is what drives a business. A reality of corporate software development is 80% of the overall costs of writing a program for internal use is tied up in maintaining that program over its lifetime. Years of studies have shown this.

As a result, anything that you can do that cuts down in a significant way on the amount of time, and hence money, needed to modify or change a program over its lifetime is a big deal to a business. And for those who can see through the immediate problems, think towards the future and succeed in doing it right more often than wrong, there is a great deal of opportunity in this area.

I've learned over the years that if you can play in that space and show the business results in this area, you'll never starve. I never have. I found my niche and I do fairly well by it.

So I get really, really annoyed when I keep seeing programmers doing dumb shit. I'm stunned at the number of programmers who do repetitive stuff over and over (like copying and pasting code) because of either a) they don't see the obvious pattern in front of them or b) it's the way they've always done or c) they don't have time to do it right because of a looming deadline or issue.

The first is understandable. Not all developers are equal. Some do things by rote because that's how they've been taught. Give them a working example and they're fine. They can run with it. But they can't see any potential problems with what they are doing. They lack the capacity to look beyond the immediate and abstract it into a better long-term solution. Some can never learn how either.

The second is commonplace. You repeat what works. However, like many disciplines, it is very easy to fall into the trap of familiarity. Or, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it.". Alas in software, there are varying degrees of "broke". We'll get to that. Sometimes doing it because it works isn't the best thing in the long term. Which leads to the third item.

The third is what really upsets me. The programmer recognizes there is a better way to do something. They see the inherent flaws in what they are doing and often have a way in their mind to do it better. If asked, they'll even tell you what that is. But when you ask them why they aren't doing it, they say they don't have time, no one cares or they just don't want to or feel like it.

I cannot stand that type of lazy thinking. It drives me to virtual apopolexy. They see a bad design, acknowledge it, have a solution and yet accept the worse strategy because of short term gain. Whether laziness on their part or because they see the business as not caring and they see their effort as being wasted. Or because the deadline is more important than doing it right.

If you take pride in your work, you try to do it right. Even if it is just for yourself. In software, this a very important thing. Often, you might have to come back to make some changes on a program you worked on a year ago. By then, you've forgotten all the details of the program you knew while you last worked on it and have to figure them out all over again. A proper solution versus a half-assed one can save you a lot of aggravation down the road. And a solution the business will thank you for in saved maintenance costs.

I follow a simple mantra: "Write for the person who will succeed you. They'll thank you. Sometimes, it might even be you.". In software, a simple application of this mantra is to sit someone down in front of your program who has never seen it and let them figure it roughly what it is supposed to do. If a less-experienced programmer can grasp what your program is doing within 10-15 minutes of casual observation, you're doing it right.

It's amazing how you can build an entire career around such simple philosophies. But when others don't subscribe to those views, it is very hard to resist the urge to choke the life out of them.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of lazy thinking in the corporate software world and not all of it originates from programmers. That is a much harder nut to crack and can reduce even the most experienced programmer to wishing they were at a bar at that particular moment. Tales for a future post perhaps.

Not what you were expecting today. I'm trying to branch out. Welcome to my world!

Supreme Benevolent Dictator

2008-05-07T11:08:00.000-07:00

I'm late to the game on this but I need something to post to let people know I'm still alive. Sorry folks, it has been a very trying week. My fiancee's grandmother died last week and she has been away until yesterday tying up her affairs and I've been the defender of the dingo and domicile.

This past Monday's vet appointment for his blood sugar check was very bad. Fate was smiling on us that day because if it had been any other day under similar circumstances, he would have been dead. His blood sugar was 33mg/dl, which is comatose levels in a human. Because we check him without food or insulin, we caught it. Still, he was very touch-and-go through the day. Very terrifying.

I'm not ashamed to say for my strength of conviction and so-called "heartless conservatism" in other areas, they are balanced by the fact I care deeply for those close to me including my pets. Had it been any other day, I would have given him that insulin shot and with those levels that low, he would have passed away before we got home. I would have never forgiven myself.

This is the stuff my nightmares are made of. So I hope you understand the silence from my end. I'm on pins and needles with Foster right now and I'm just glad he's back to his normal self.

My weak justifications aside, let's play. Here is Uncle's challenge:

Suppose you were elected Temporary Supreme Dictator of America.

What are 10 laws you would pass/repeal or government programs you would create/tear down? (Assume that you are in office for however long it would take to do these things and that any changes you make will remain in place after you leave office.)

Here are my 10 laws. Some of this will be familiar and repeated by others. Hopefully, some will be foolishly unique to me.

1) Rewrite the 2nd Amendment. It shall read "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Never Be Infringed. Congress shall pass no law infringing the exercise of this right and no system of registration, licensing or taxation in any form against this shall permitted by any political or government entity of the United States. Arms is defined as "any personal weapon that may be carried by any individual soldier into battle, past, present or future. This includes machine guns.". Explosive devices, artillery and any other area effect weapon may be regulated in what ever manner deemed acceptable by the People but such shall never be prohibited or banned from their possession by regulatory or judicial means. The States shall have no power to regulate the exercise of this right by the People within their borders.".

Translation: Congress will have no authority to regulate or control the possession of past, current or future infantry type small arms. I am removing the "well-regulated militia" part because I want the gun control groups buried once and for all on this "collective rights" nonsense. I know, this is a lot longer and lot less elegant but I want it to be known that being armed is your right and the Government shall never have the power in any form to take it away.

I leave open the option for regulating explosive devices, artillery, etc as needed similar to the NFA today but with no possibility for a future Lautenberg Amendment or local/State bans. That's what the last line does. Essentially, this codifies into the Constitution the provisions of 18 USC 926(a) into the law of the land. It's a real sticking point with me that we have a law that says no political entity of the United States may have a system of firearm or gun owner registration and yet many do today. Not under my watch.

Note that this also means that open or concealed carry of any firearm anywhere by anyone is perfectly legal with no possibility of local control. The last sentence guarantees that. If you can't be trusted with a gun in any public place, you can't be trusted in society period.

2) Repeal all existing gun laws.

Work with Congress to establish a new set of laws specifically for the aforementioned explosive devices and area effect weapons. Since I'm the dictator, my guidance shall be considered highly influential. Other than that, existing laws against murder, rape, robbery and general mayhem should be sufficient to cover any crime committed with any weapon, firearms included. It's not the tool, it's the criminal.

3) Repeal the 17th Amendment.

I agree with many others that this amendment broke a lot of the balance of power in our system of government. The Founders were smart men, I will not second-guess them here.

4) Add an amendment that states: "Any bill under consideration by Congress may only contain language germane to its stated purpose. It shall be unlawful for any member of Congress or the Senate to introduce an amendment to any bill not related to its direct, stated purpose. In addition, each bill shall contain a clause containing the Constitutional authority that would permit the bill to stand. Any representative found to be introducing non-germane amendments to a bill shall be summarily removed from office. All bills signed into law expire automatically within 5 years unless specifically re-enacted by Congress and no such re-enactment shall exceed 10 years.".

This fixes another big pet peeve of mine in our current system of government. Specifically, the overreach of power by Congress. Since the Constitution will bar inappropriate amendments, there is no need for me to have a Constitutional amendment granted the President a line-item veto.

The lack of an ability to pass a permanent law will also act as a natural brake on creeping governmentalism. Congress will have to spend a good portion of its time reenacting various statutes. By doing so, this minimizes the amount of trouble they can cause for the country-at-large. A government doing nothing productive (by their terms) is a good one for the People.

The Constitutional authority requirement ought to be obvious. Kind of puts an end to the "commerce clause" bullshit too and pretty much makes most Government activity beyond national defense, proper interstate commerce regulation, fair and equal justice and national infrastructure beyond the control of the Federal government.

Just as it should be.

5) My last Constitutional amendment shall read: "Congress shall be authorized to levy a tax on the People and their businesses to not exceed 12 percent of their income without exception. Bills authorizing progressive taxation are only permitted if passed by the 2/3rds majority of both Congress and the Senate and shall automatically expire within 5 years of enactment and no extensions shall be permitted. Only one progressive tax act shall be allowed in any 10 year period.".

This one is not mine. This is courtesy of David Weber from his Honor Harrington series of novels. In other words, a 12% flat tax across the board and the only way to have a progressive tax structure is if it passes by a supermajority in both Houses. And it will automatically expire and only one can be passed per decade. This is to prevent another progressive tax from being debated and enacted on the heels of an expiring one and essentially replicating our existing system over time. The American people will get a Constitutionally mandated "tax holiday" at least 5 years out of every 10.

Naturally, the end result of Amendments 28 through 31 will be a much smaller IRS, a virtually non-existent ATF. No need for me to disband them. They'll just atrophy away under the new laws of the land and perhaps then those worked for them will find honest work.

Now onto my edicts and laws...

6) Tort reform. No suit shall be brought by any lawyer on a "contingency basis". Anyone may sue anyone for anything but they'll pay upfront. In the event a lawsuit is found to be frivolous, the filer of said suit shall pay all costs. Those who file numerous such suits (more than 3 in a row and are overturned) shall be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 2 years for each offense.

This ought to cut down big time on people being sue-happy. I want to make sure folks think long and hard about filing nuisance or lottery lawsuits in the hopes of a payday settlement.

In that vein...

7) The Government shall by limited to a maximum of one million dollars in total costs, direct or indirect, without exception in any criminal or civil action brought under its auspices by any agency.

This is to try and limit how much damage a Government prosecution can do to individuals since individuals do not have the essentially limitless resources the Government has in pursuing an action. One million may seem like a lot but it is a damn sight better than 50 million or more. This one can probably do with some rework but since I'm dictator, my Rod of Guidance should be more than sufficient to steer the results I intend towards reality.

8) No sovereign immunity for Government employees or public servants in case of gross misconduct or negligence in discharge of their duties.

I agree with Uncle on this one.

9) End all welfare programs including Social Security.

That's what private charities are for and they did well for centuries before such social programs. As a concession, Social Security shall be funded for anyone who is 50 or over right now. The rest are on the their own.

Unlike Uncle, I wouldn't refund previous Social Security "contributions". That is a form of "pay it forward". But it ends now. There will be no more Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid deductions on your paycheck. You take that money home taxed at the 12% flat rate.

And lastly, I lied. There is one more Amendment to the Constitution:

10) Voting franchise shall be granted to any US citizen 18 years of age or older if and only if they have completed a satisfactory term of service or enrollment of no minimum of four(4) years in one of the following institutions:

Any branch of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard, Reserves, Coast Guard or Merchant Marine
Any State militia unit
Any US government authorized volunteer public service organization

Such franchise shall be revoked upon conviction of any crime involving imprisonment and shall be restored upon a successful application by the convicted person only after five(5) years from release.

Sorry, of all the philosophical concepts that I have taken away is the one espoused by Robert Heinlein in the concept that sovereign franchise should be earned, not bestowed. Too many people take for granted the highest right and the use of political force in this country. As a citizen-to-be denied this right, I cherish it more than you know. You should have to prove yourself worthy of that right before being allowed to exercise.

I thought about carving out an exception for those who didn't want to serve but decided against it. The last institution is my bending on this issue. I would expect the Government to form some type of service organization to allow those wish to serve the community in some capacity to do so. Think of a domestic Peace Corps. Organizations that lay roads, build houses, dig ditches, volunteer law enforcement, that type of thing but doesn't fall under a military purpose. It has to be voluntary. You give of yourself before you get the right to vote.

I can think of a few more to add here but I'll leave it at the stated 10. Flame away!

Gunshot Wounds and the Death Penalty

2008-05-01T09:15:00.001-07:00

Sometimes you just take inspiration from others. Today is one of those days.

This post is making the rounds. It is a written by a coroner who performs autopsies and his views on the effectiveness of various gun calibers based on his unique personal observations. Warning, this is not for the squeamish. For me, I find this stuff interesting and all of us take away something different. Robb, for example.

For me, here is the part that stood out for me:

Maybe it's my law enforcement background or maybe it's having worked in the morgue for a number of years, but killing someone who is coming at me with intent to do me in is precisely what I want to do. For those who don't, that's fine, and I have no problem with it. We all make our own decisions and live (or die) with them. I was a witness at an execution by lethal injection last year and I have to say it didn't bother me a bit; I also think that killing someone who is intent on doing me bodily harm would have a similar effect. Having seen innumerable innocent civilians killed by BGs, I'll have to admit that an imperceptible smile crosses my face every time I see a BG supine on an autopsy table. I suspect the vast majority of law enforcement personnel feel similarly.

Emphasis is mine.

I pulled this quote out for a very simple reason: It mirrors my viewpoint on the subject precisely.

I can hear neck bones snapping back in horror at this point.

Too many people cannot separate and categorize violence. To them, all violence is evil and bad. And to a point, they are correct. Violence has no degree of good. It has only degrees of bad. Even though a single act of violence may be performed for a good cause, the purveyor of that violence will be left with scars that never totally fade. No matter how trivial and whether the you are receiver or giver of that violence, from that moment on, you are changed.

It is when you know going in that committing violence will change you and not for the better and yet you go forth anyway that we see greatness. It is why we have sheepdogs.

But to read this passage, people are blinded with stark, numbing shock. How can it be? How can you be so clinical and dispassionate about the ending of another's life? It is all bad! It must be!

For them, maybe. The fundamental disconnect is because they see the taking of any life, no matter the circumstances, as being morally equivalent to any other. If you kill, you're evil. You must be. Hence why they cannot understand how anyone can contemplate violence in different ways and separate them into "good" and "bad" forms. A dead rapist is equal to a dead rape victim. To them, neither deserved to die. Both to them have reasons to have been kept alive.

People who differentiate the modes and uses of force in contrary to this are alien to the vast majority of the population. They cannot understand us because their very mode of equivalence leaves them directionless. Their moral compass is blank, it has no pointer. They cannot see or be guided to those differences. Unlike them, soldiers know the difference. Police know the difference. Our author of this post knows the difference. The sheepdogs who walk among us know the difference. I know the difference.

Most people cannot face the difference. We have a word for them: victims.

I have contemplating the killing of another human being. I've never done it and never hope to do so. I do not want those scars. But I share the author's views. If the one being killed is deserving of it, either by their immediate acts or judged as such by a jury of their peers, I am not disturbed in the least. Strap a killer to a gurney and overdose him into oblivion and I will not shed a tear nor recoil cowardly. I would nod and be pleased at the knowledge that despite having not prevented their devastation once, there shall never be a second one from him. I can live with that.

I have told this to others and I have tried explaining the difference between "violent and predatory" and "violent but protective". Sometimes without effect. Some don't get it. They've been conditioned by the thin veneers of comfort and normalcy of day-to-day life. Violence, such as results on the author's slab, are distant and unknown. The gang bangers short, brutish life does not touch us so we do not care and thus, do not guard against it.

Which is why when anyone talks about getting a gun to protect themselves in the wake of some close-by clawing of our civilized veneer, I ask them if they've considered killing. That's when you see the head snap back. They haven't. They haven't made the mental leap from having a gun for protection to the reality of its use and all that it entails. They've literally run into that mental wall and if they've never separated types of violence, they can never breach it.

Go give the author's post a read. Even if you don't know much about guns, caliber or ballistics, you can learn a lot. It may teach you differences.

Which leads into a related point since we are on the topic of dispassion towards our fellow man.

Recently, John Muhammad, one of the Beltway Spree (sniper is a titled he has not earned) Killers is appealing his death sentence in Virginia on the basis of his bad childhood, brain damage, not enough hugs, too few unicorns in the world, etc. His defense is upset because the jury never got to hear his boo-hoo stories about how all the hardships he had to endure as a child and as a result, it drove him to steal an AR-15 and kill 10 innocent people in order to work through his issues.

Is there anyone out there who believes he and Lee Boyd Malvo don't deserve to die? If so, leave a comment. I'd love to hear your reasoning beyond "the death penalty is barbaric".

When it comes to the death penalty, I am a follower of Heinlein. To paraphrase: "If there no way for us to stop it from happening once, there is one surefire way to make sure it doesn't happen twice.".

In cases such as this, I don't understand why we go to so much waste and trouble. I am in favor of reforming the death penalty but not in the way you think. I favor limiting it to cases where guilt and heinousness are beyond question but when it does apply, the penalty is carried out swiftly, publicly and without mercy.

Such a rule clearly applies here. I don't care that Malvo was a minor at the time of the crimes and fell into Muhammad's sphere of influence. Something had to be telling him deep down that hiding in the trunk of a car, laying the sights on a person shopping at Home Depot and pulling the trigger had to be wrong. Otherwise, why not just walk up to them, do it at point-blank range and stroll away. It it was normal, why hide?

I've been asked what I would do with them. Unlike a lot of crimes you read about, I lived here right in the middle of the area where it was happening. I was looking over my shoulder wondering where the bullet would come from. Those of us in the Metro DC area started to understand what life under terrorist threat was like in a small way. Violence, even that not committed against you, can change your patterns of behavior.

My response is simple: "Put them up against a wall and shoot them.".

And while they're reeling from that, I follow up with: "And the State won't have to do much. I am sure they can find 10 willing volunteers to wield the rifles. And if there is a lack of rifles, I suspect there would be no shortage of those willing to bring their own along with ammunition. I will.".

But, but, shooting them would be cruel and unusual punishment!

No, it wouldn't. Just because it might hurt briefly doesn't make it cruel. A headshot guarantees there will be little, if any, pain. Unusual would be drawing it out or making the criminal suffer more than necessary. Gut shooting them, for example, would be cruel and unusual. Parking one in their running lights or shredding their heart with 10 well-placed shots would not be.

And if they called for volunteers, I might even be willing to do it free of charge. I have no time for compassion for such human garbage. They've already consumed more oxygen than their victims ever will.

The death penalty is about two things to me: closure and vengeance.

Closure for the victim's relatives to give them knowledge the criminal can never do them harm again. If you disagree, consider the prospect of a scumbag up in front of a parole board after 25 years and the emotional wrenching that will induce in the future at the prospect of this monster walking free. Don't tell me that isn't harm. The future possibility of final justice never quite being "final" has to weigh hard on those who have lost because of such predators.

The second reason ought to be obvious. Justice sometimes needs to be terrible, swift and final. A desire for revenge is part of all of us. What is Justice but nothing more than stylized revenge in clothes of civility? Throwing someone into a damp cell 23 hours a day and throwing away the key is vengeance too. Many people take satisfaction in this ideal but find a firing squad to be barbaric on wrong. I've never understood this dichotomy.

Bullets are cheaper on everyone involved and far less torturous. A sociopath shredding his last elements of sanity in a solitary cell is probably far crueler than simply taking him outside to the post or gallows. Alas, we all measure our views of vengeance in different ways.

Perhaps I'm too barbaric.

Mental Midgets

2008-04-27T11:51:00.000-07:00

I'm in a snarky mood lately. If this is an issue for any of my 6 or so regular readers, please let me know. But for now, I'm going to rant on a little Reasoned Discourse(TM) that plunked itself in my comments to this post.

Here is the comment:

The real focus of attention should be on Eric Thompson and his TGSCOM company for selling concealed handguns to mentally disturbed people in the first place. The best solution is to sue him and his company out of business to set an example to other irresponsible dealers.

First, before I address this, an observation. Why do folks who violently disagree with your viewpoint hide behind anonymity? Man or woman up and have the courage to stand behind your convictions. You might accuse me of being anonymous but other than my hiding of my last name, I stand behind who I am and am honest in where I live, what I do, etcetera.

If you're going to spout off with stuff like above, have more courage than a common earthworm or the French Army and identify yourself. Anonymity guarantees you'll remove all doubt of you being ignorant, shallow, incapable of independent thought and waiting for the farmer to shear you in the paddock. Being honest as to who you are raises your credibility in the eyes of others.

Not that it would have saved you in this case, Anonymous.

For the benefit of those of you who do not know, Eric Thompson is the man who runs a gun sales business that sold Cho the P22 pistol he used at Virginia Tech. He operates out of Green Bay, Wisconsin and sold Cho the gun online.

Eric Thompson did nothing wrong. The fact that he is apologizing or engaging in contrition for an act he was not party to nor had any control over shows him to be a man of compassion and conscience. A decent human being by my standards. And yet he gets wrongly blamed.

First, there is no such thing as a "concealed handgun". That alone shows that Anonymous is an Idiot. "Concealed" is a state of transport, not a type of weapon. A handgun held openly is certainly not concealed.

Second, how is Eric Thompson responsible?

Well, the mental midget we are dealing with here states clearly that he/she feels that Mr. Thompson is responsible because he sold a gun to a mentally disturbed criminal. Ok. That sounds reasonable on the surface, right? It's pretty easy to follow that path of logic. Punish those that provided the tools used in a crime.

Except that Eric Thompson had no way of knowing Cho was to be a criminal. None. Zip. Zero.

That is what fools like Anonymous don't seem to understand. They spout off stuff like this as if it was common knowledge or holy writ from the Gods themselves but never bother to question the assumptions laced within them. If they bothered, then this comment collapses into the heap of rubble it deserves to be.

Here's why.

It is absolutely undeniable that Cho bought one of his guns online from Eric Thompson. It is true. But this very fact is why Thompson is not irresponsible as Anonymous believes him to be.

It is for the simple fact that Federal law does not permit handguns to be transferred to someone who doesn't reside in the state it is purchased in! In such cases, like this one, Eric Thompson had to ship the gun to a dealer in Virginia so the transfer could be performed to Cho.

And for the two-by-four cluebat, pay attention to this part, Anonymous:

The background check that should have revealed Cho to be mentally disturbed and thus prohibited from owning a gun can only be performed at the time of transfer. Usually, this is the same place as where the gun is bought. But in the case of interstate sales, this is where the gun is shipped, not by whom it was sold.

In other words, Eric Thompson had no ability or authority to do the background check! That was done by the Virginia gun dealer than received Cho's gun. It was where Cho filled out the paperwork once the gun was received by Eric Thompson's company from out-of-state.

So, you are wrong, Anonymous. 100 percent flat-out stupid wrong. Eric Thompson was in no way irresponsible. In fact, it would have been illegal for him to access the background check system for any purpose other than a face-to-face sale in his own business.

Just like any other gun dealer.

But now Anonymous may make the leap (assuming that much self-honesty and mental capacity) that Eric Thompson wasn't at fault but then the Virginia gun dealer is for letting Cho have the gun.

Which is also bullshit since the dealer only acts based on the response received from the Virginia State Police and the FBI after Cho filled out the paperwork and both of them told that dealer to proceed! There was nothing in the database that said Cho was not legally allowed to own a gun. The fact there wasn't has now been corrected and was an administrative failure by the State of Virginia, not Eric Thompson.

Both of Cho's guns were transferred to him 100 percent legally under this system in place at the time.

Drive that fact into your pea brain and lodge it there permanently.

So explain to me how Eric Thompson and other "irresponsible" dealers like him who followed the law to the letter should be sued out of existence as an example to others?

The problem with folks like Anonymous is they aren't capable of critical thinking because it isn't a simple answer. It actually takes, you know, work to learn what the laws are and how they apply. But people like Anonymous simply believe things like "guns are easy to get" and "anyone can buy a gun over the Internet" and leap to the conclusion that there are no controls and that the gun trade here is not dissimilar from someone smuggling arms into Liberia. Blood, money and anarchy.

Nothing is further from the truth. Truth you never bothered to learn. Or even thought existed.

The irony of your last "demand" for a lawsuit is the best part: Congress passed a law that specifically prohibits the very lawsuits you demand except in cases of criminal negligence! It's called S.397, "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act". Click the link provided if you don't believe me.

Doing what the FBI tells you under its rules is not criminal negligence.

Perhaps it is good thing you didn't sign your name, Anonymous. You wouldn't want people to know you're a fool after all.

CNN on Campus Carry

2008-04-25T13:59:00.001-07:00

CNN admits they didn't write this article and you'll see why. It is actually fair coverage regarding the visit of Eric Thompson, the man who sold the VT shooter his P22, to Virginia Tech.

You can tell they tried to put a sensational, biased spin on this with the article title but ultimately fail. I would like to make two points about this article and leave you to it.

University spokesman Larry Hincker released a statement denouncing Thompson's visit.
"Free speech is a hallmark of university life," Hincker said. "Still, I find it terribly offensive to learn that the gun-seller of the weapons used in the Virginia Tech campus murders would set foot on this campus.
"Additionally, the organizers appear to be incredibly insensitive to the families of the victims who lost loved ones and to the injured students still recovering from this horrendous tragedy."

Fuck you, Larry. It is well-known you prefer students to be unarmed and have actively opposed any effort by the State and law-abiding citizens from violating the fiefdom you and your betters would like to rule with an iron hand.

And from the one protester who was there:

"I don't believe in concealed-carry [of guns] on campus, and I don't think that is a good idea for a university," Schmale said. "I thought the speech was respectful and I think that he did show that he had compassion for people.
"I still think a lot of it was slanted and very rights-oriented, and did not fully address the idea of what having guns on campus is going to mean for safety in classrooms and the environment in general of Virginia Tech," she said.

Damn right it was rights oriented! This is what this is all about: your rights. I don't consider talking about the exercise of Constitutional rights to be "slanted". To her credit, she actually had a reasonable response and view on the issue than most protesters. She acknowledged the other side's view politely and agreed to disagree.

I disagree with your view but you protested the way people should on this issue. I hope she will come to realize that defending all your rights is a good thing.

That is all from me. I'm back to work. Good weekend everyone!

Limits at Quantico

2008-04-25T06:44:00.001-07:00

My friend Tom forwarded this to me yesterday:

Due to recent events, 7.62x39, 7.62x51 and 7.62x54 calibers are NOT being allowed on WTBN ranges until further notice. We will keep club members advised as this situation develops.

This is from the President of the Quantico Shooting Club. Turns out I wasn't on the mailing list but I am now. For those of you wondering, WTBN stands for "Weapons Training Battalion". They control all of the shooting ranges on Marine Corps Base Quantico. The Quantico Shooting Club operates under their rules and regulations.

I can find nothing on the member forum or the site indicating what is happening. This is very odd to me that these three calibers have been singled out. I'm sure there's a good reason.

In parallel, the rifle ranges don't appear to be scheduled through the end of May. Very depressing. Admittedly, they generally don't post the rifle range openings until the Friday of the weekend they will be open but still an unhappy thing if the current schedule holds.

I'm a rifle shooter. If you have any interest in long distance (300 yards and beyond) shooting, there are only two places you can do it. One is the Fairfax Rod and Gun Club. They have a limited membership and you need to know two people in the club to even have a chance at joining. I've heard the waiting list to join there is years long. The other is the Quantico Shooting Club. Unlike the Fairfax Club, QSC is open to public membership provided you meet the criteria. Knowing someone helps too.

As a result, a membership at QSC is worth its weight in gold to a shooter. Especially a rifle shooter. You get to shoot on some of the best ranges in the area. So this development is frightening. It's probably just security and I can certainly respect that. Personally, it doesn't affect me too greatly except for the fact my Mosins and AKs have to stay home. And my CETME. And eventually my FAL. But my 6.5mm, the rifle I want to shoot at Quantico anyway, still is usable.

But for other shooters, this is huge since 7.62x51 is the dominant long distance caliber. This has to be affecting them.

Hopefully it's just range repair work or something that will be lifted by late Spring or Summer. I enjoy the few opportunities I get down to Quantico as it is a really great place to shoot. Very friendly folks and really nice facilities.

I'd like to know what's going on and here's hoping for a quick resolution.

Book Meme

2008-04-25T05:29:00.000-07:00

Robb and Tam have this going and several other bloggers of the geeky persuasion have jumped on in. Since I am a big bookworm, this one I cannot resist. Here is the meme:

1. Pick up the nearest book of 123 pages or more. No cheating!
2. Find page 123.
3. Find the first five sentences.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people.

Here is my selection:

Too often, people feeling secure in their boat have stopped at night, dropped anchor, and dozed off. Some of these people have never awoke. Zombies walking on the bottom can hear a boat approaching as well as the sound of an anchor hitting the mud.

Any bloggers are welcome to tag themselves and play too!

Good Reads

2008-04-24T06:40:00.000-07:00

A couple of great reads courtesy of David Codrea at War on Guns while I get the next post out of the hopper. Trying for this afternoon.

No Bullets No Shooting and "Taking Gun Virgins for a Desert Shoot". The latter is timely in light of my recent activities and taking "gun virgins" out to shoot is more common than one might think. Curiosity and the thrill of the "forbidden, itself a sad commentary on attitudes towards guns, do most of the work.