Tuesday, April 30, 2013

- You Know You've Succeeded When...

I'm informed via email by a friend who owns one, that the venerated Mossberg 500 has now been produced 10 million Times.

I'd like to offer my congratulations to the Mossberg corporation and assure them that I will continue to recommend their products to whoever will listen, based entirely on the strength of their design and proven success. (But If they want to send me some free gear I'll recommend them for any other reason they want me to.)


The emailer mentioned above also has his own comment about the gun.

- But I'm Really Talking About My friend...

This blog was born from my desire to voice my opinion about guns and gun regulation.

I'm an avid sport shooter and hunter, and when I began writing this blog that practically made me a pariah in the circles where I moved. The finance world runs out of New York, and I was a mid level research analyst at a very large NY hedge fund. That meant I had to cope with at least some of the 'big firm' politics, and in NY that means guns=bad.

But that wasn't the truth as I saw it. The people who were making that argument were weaving the thinnest intellectual cloth. In that world it was simply assumed that the opposing view with regard to guns was invalid. There was no one who was willing to risk the corporate political disfavor that might come with disagreeing with someone in power over a topic unrelated to our business, so it never came up. But I have a knack for annoying the powerful, so I dove in.

Understand, the way I saw it, we were discussing a truth which no one ever dared raise. The upside of telling someone with power 'the truth' only to have them consign your career to the dustbin, simply wasn't worth it to anyone. But for other reasons too tedious to go into here, I was already in a no win situation at that firm. So I figured there was no reason not to at least make myself feel a little better by speaking up. This blog is just me speaking even louder.

I admit that my decision may have been foolish at the time. Lord knows it has helped cement some very powerful enemies for me. But I find something very admirable about the people who are willing to step up and tell the truth as they see it, even when that truth is unpopular. And even if I can't really count myself among them, at least I can see where they stand from here.

Of course, that's a very difficult thing to do unless you have a very firm intellectual foundation for your thoughts, other wise you just end up looking foolish. But just because an opinion is unpopular doesn't necessarily make it incorrect. There is ample territory in America's current political discourse where it's possible to hold a truly independent and unpopular opinion, while still being intellectually defensible.

It takes courage to say things like that. It's hard to tell the truth when you know that people - not monsters, but well intentioned and more or less decent people - may very well revile you for it. But for a certain class of man, honoring that truth is more important than popularity.

These days, nothing will inspire people to revile you as quickly as an honest discussion regarding race. The topic of race is serious dumbed down, to the point where all the victims and all the villains can be identified long before any of the facts are even raised. But there are some intellectually well founded things that can be said about race that don't fit that model at all.

Many of those things are based entirely on the science around the subject, and it's only through denial of things that most liberals would call 'scientific facts' that the liberal dogma regarding race manages to survive. Those scientific facts are probably much better predictors of the events in real life than the current liberal dogma. And in truth, the only real reason the liberal dogma regarding race is so vigorously defended is because it's so blatantly, obviously wrong.

It's time for honest men (and women) to begin discussing it. It still takes a great deal of courage to kick that hornet's nest. But if you are brave, then it will benefit us all to begin actually discussing the issue, instead of pretending that we already know who the villains and who the victims already are. Surely there are some people out there for whom the truth is more important than their popularity.

- A Clever Billboard

This is so clever, that I'm surprised Oleg Volk didn't think of it.

And naturally the perpetual victim class is in an uproar.

(A click on the 'uproar' link will update the image in your cache and fix the display issue.)

Sunday, April 28, 2013

- OJ Trial: Part Deux

The trial of George Zimmerman is going to be such an entertaining circus, that WKMG Local 6 has launched an app to cover it. Now you can get live video, links to crucial evidence and push notification of case developments. If you want to participate in the 'after' riot, you'll have to be on twitter or facebook.

That there is such ah thing as a George Zimmerman trial at all is already a travesty of justice. He was cleared and only brought back to trial because of a doctored tape released by the media, that inflamed the black community. But the "justice" system (who really thinks this case is about 'justice anymore?) isn't supposed to work that way. You aren't supposed to try people just because there is an angry mob outside who doesn't like his skin color.

(BTW, does anyone know what happened to the producer who did that audio hatchet job? He probably got promoted.)

The black community that is crying out for Zimmerman's blood isn't looking at the evidence, all they're looking at is the color of his skin. And when the riot happens afterward, it will be no surprise to anyone. The only question then is "does law and order matter at all anymore, or are we just appealing to the mob?"

Live ammunition. The riots should all be put down with live ammunition.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

- Ghoulishly Waiting For The Next Newtown

The Democrats are ghoulishly waiting for the next "Newtown" massacre so they can say "we told you so", and dredge up all their failed restrictions on the second amendment for one more try.

I guess they're hoping that next time they can rush something through in the heat of the moment, without anyone being able to mount a defense. Personally I think that demonstrates how detached from reality the modern Democrat party has become. Actually passing a law like they want is the worst possible thing that could happen to them, because America's gun owners will not be disarmed.

In that national journal piece they talk about closing the 'passion gap', but that isn't going to happen. Do they know anyone out there who is willing to break the law to impound the lawfully owned weapons of private citizens? Do they know anyone willing to try to kill the leaders of the NRA if they don't go along with the next round of 'gun ban' attempts? Because I know LOTS of people who are willing to break any law to keep their weapons. And I know at least a few who would be happy to try and kill a congressman or two if that's what it would take to stop it.

How in the world are you going to close a 'passion gap' like that?

And we should remember that when Newtown happened, nanny Bloomberg was already waiting for the next shooting. This was his tactic last time. He was all set with the press packets, the checks to the upstate NY assemblymen, and the backroom drafted laws designed to disarm as many people as possible. He was able to wreak havoc in New york State, but nationally he failed. And when the elections come around I would be very surprised if the NRA didn't end up with more scalps on it's belt than Bloomberg does. American's just don't want to be bossed around by a Napoleonic little butt-insky like him.

Also, that 90% support for universal background checks that liberal journalists keep quoting as if it's a real number, is just ridiculous. It was an invented number created by shamefully stacked polling from Bloomberg's sock puppet "Dwarven Mayors Against Illegal Guns". 90% of the American people do not support universal background checks and never did. I'd be willing to wager that 90% of the people on New York's upper west side don't support them. 90% of the sycophants on Mike Bloomberg's staff maybe do, but that's about it. And America doesn't find that gaggle of throne sniffers particularly persuasive

That's why their efforts failed last time. But so long as Mike Bloomberg's wallet stays open, they are going to 'try - try again'. And when they do try, they will run up against the same resistance. The NRA is the only political organization on the right who will never back down. The desire of liberals to grasp power over the lives of their fellow citizens is limitless. But the determination of the NRA to prevent them from succeeding is just as limitless. there will be no wearing us down. The only question is this:

"Will the NRA win the argument politically, or will this be the time where more extreme measures are required?"

The last time we had a revolution in this country, it was because king George decided to seize weapons being stored in Concord and Lexington. and if liberals succeed in passing their gun ban, then the next revolution will be about exactly the same thing.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

-GE: Parent Company of MSLSD Tells Gun Stores They Are Not Welcome

If you own a small firearms shop... No Finance For You!
Apparently It's the Little Guys that need to get bullied. Had small Firearms stores across the country decided to sell LGBT literature along with LMT Uppers, good 'ol General Electric would keep the financing spigot open. Or, if you are Wal-Mart, you are "good to go" as far as GE Financing is concerned.
I refuse to buy GE products, I refuse to support the sponsors of MSLSD, and if GE Cap offered me a finance deal, I'd pay the vig to deal with an NRA friendly lender.
Responsible individuals make up the majority of gun owners in America. We'll call them "The Adults at the table". GE and other finance companies are following a system where they believe it is proper to discipline people that behave responsibly. What will happen, and what always happens when responsible people are confronted with irrational motives, they will work around it to the point where people realize (light-bulb goes off!)  what a really dumb idea it was to go forward with this objective.
Rational, responsible people are no strangers to overcoming obstacles. GE is picking on the wrong group for the wrong reasons.

- The Intentional FAA Delays

The thing I take from the FAA delays is that our public masters servants are trying to remind us who is in charge around here. Either we bow and prostrate ourselves before them or they will make us suffer. Instead of responsibly managing their assigned tasks with slightly less money than they expected (just like the rest of us would do in a similar circumstance) they are acting like a petulant teenager performing a chore they would rather not. And doing a bad job of it to make sure we never ask them to do it again - at least not without forking over as much cash as they asked for. It is a monopoly after all, so who else are you going to get to do it?

The FAA budget in real terms is larger than it was last year. So it's not like there isn't enough money to handle essential services. The only thing that's missing from the equation is a staff who is responsible enough to do so. The White house all but insisted that the 'pain' be left on maximum, so I don't even know that we can blame the FAA staffers. They are no more efficient than any other public servant, a group not known for their work ethic and dedication to begin with. But I think all things considered they could have probably managed things better if left to their own devices.

This isn't the way that adults conduct their lives. But it's the way the Whitehouse is insisting it be done. In their eyes we have failed to give them the same size of increase they wanted, and now we must be punished for it. How dare we hold back our own money when the Whitehouse would have it otherwise.

So in the end, I think you can blame Snooki and her like minded voters. They are the ones who wanted to empower the government to do everything for us. And if government can't do it well (when does it ever) then we are only getting what we let ourselves in for.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

- What "The Derb" Has Been Up To

Who knew?

- The CNBC AR15 Hit Piece

Yes, I know I have to watch this dreck... eventually. But I'm not going to enjoy it. It's going to be the same old leftist media hit piece on the second amendment. Make the gun supporters look like crazies, make the anti-gun crazies look sane. And hope to 'challenge America" in the conversation, which means "present the leftist view in the most positive light". Standard coastal Media, Bloomberg funded BS.

We in the financial world who have CNBC on all day every day, forget that CNBC is part of the broader NBC media machine and are as far to the left as they can manage on any issue. Their on air staff are 'journalists' and even the libertarian types all lean left on social issues. The closest thing they have to someone on the political right is Joe Kernan, who is WAY to the political left of someone like me. So I'm certain this AR15 piece will have a serious leftward tilt.

Would you like to know what the difference is between the AR15 and other 'weapons of war' that have all become common use civilian firearms? Oh didn't you notice that? All civilian firearms in common use today in America were at one time used by America's military. In fact, the only operational difference between the AR15 and the semi-automatic weapon in common use by America's military in WWII was the fact that the Garand rifle used a much LARGER bullet.

Here's the big design difference. The AR15 was an optimized weapon. It's designed to make the wielder as accurate as possible with every shot. It's made where possible of plastic and aircraft aluminum so it's relatively light. Thanks in part to it's tiny bullet and it's 'straight stock' design, it has VERY low recoil compared to other rifles. That low recoil increases second shot accuracy. And since it's designed to be modular and adjustable, it can compensate for the small difference between various shooter's size - giving everyone a weapon that fits them perfectly.

The AR15 is a nearly perfect weapon for coyote hunting. It's an excellent design for eliminating prairie dogs, and it makes a stellar tool for a number of kinds of small game. The fact that it's light and adjustable makes it a great rifle for women to handle, and it's low recoil is particularly good for introducing children to the shooting sports. None of that makes it any more deadly than any other weapon for your psychotic killer, which is why they generally prefer pistols - not unlike the gang bangers and drug criminals who do most of America's killing.

But none of that is the issue for 'gun banner's. For them it's all about how scary it looks.

The gun ban crowd has great 'tested sound bites'. Their phrases all score really high in the 'scary word' category. But none of them will actually tell you how the AR15 id designed in a more lethal way than any other rifle. And that's because it isn't. Shooting fans love it for one set of reasons having to do with it's engineering, and gun banners hate it for another set of reasons, specifically - it's looks.

They hate it's racing stripes. They hate the metaphorical flames painted on it's side. They don't understand anything else about it. And it's an idiotic idea to let public policy be set by people who don't understand what they're trying to regulate. This CNBC piece will no doubt reflect their fear. So I'll watch it (probably online next weekend) but I certainly won't like it. In my mind it's nothing but a firearm illiterate journalist informing other firearm illiterate people that their totally irrational fears are justified. But I already know enough not to be afraid.

I guarantee you that I already know much more about the AR15 than anyone at CNBC. And watching this hit piece is not going to change.

- Damaging The B-Rand

These days Rand Paul is one of the politicians I dislike the least.

In my worldview all politicians are slimy, evil, parasitic creatures. You cut one in half and both pieces will wriggle off under new rocks, both lying to you and stealing from you as they go. But Rand, like his father, is putting lots of obstacles in his own way when it comes to his future ability to steal and lie. He won't be able to redistribute very well (the traditional vocation of politicians) and be consistent with all the things he's said.

The note I wrote yesterday was meant to highlight a mild inconsistency with libertarian types like me, and the 'law and order' strong enforcement types on the right. And Rand has run up against it as well. The one quote pulled from the haystack by the liberal news reporter looking to weaken his brand was this:

"I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

This isn't exactly the same thing as dispensing with due process, but I can see where it might raise an eyebrow or two.

Personally I think we who would call Rand the 'least bad choice' should remember the role that journalists now play in our society. In very real terms they have all declared themselves enemies of the west. They seek to dismantle the institutions of civil society in every way they can, and have bought into the progressive top down vision with every cell of their tiny little brains. They spin the news so hard that it can stand on it's own like a gyroscope.

They are the last devoted socialists, who virtually all walk the world angry and resentful that everyone they see is making more money than them, has more power, and is accomplishing more with every step. They are petty, resentful, insecure little people who relish their role at tearing down the political right. And making Rand look bad, is a big priority for them right now.

So when you read anything critical about Rand Paul in any publication to the political left of National Review, you should definitely take it with a grain of salt. The IQ of your average Rand Paul supporter is probably 20 points higher than that of your average journalists. And if you're in the former group you should avoid having your opinions led by someone like that.

Remember, every print journalist in the country dreams of one day having their own 1 hour TV show on MSNBC. How can you possibly have any respect for something someone like that says?

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

- Exploiting The Poor

Look at that rich American bastard exploiting all those poor people. I'll bet not one of his factory workers is making anything close to what Lloyd Blankfein is making this year. Look at the injustice! Look at the unfairness! Look at the Horror! How could they ever expect this to ever be successful without government involved?!

- Equality Under The Law

My opinion tends toward the libertarian. I fear the rise of a police state mentality fueled by Snooki-American's desire to be coddled in a permanent adolescence by their only reliable parent - the state. So as a rule I think any place that we can dismantle the bureaucracy, we almost certainly should. I believe we would be much better with no laws at all than with a long list of laws that the people must adhere to but the state can ignore at their whim.

If that means a loss of safety then I say, so be it. I saw that video of the police rousting Watertown residents from their own homes at gun point without any probable cause or even any reasonable belief that they were committing a crime, and it gave me the chills. My home is not set up for defensible positions, and I know for certain that I could not prevent my local swat team from doing exactly the same to me. But I should be able to. I should be able to force them to do so, by demanding they respect the law.

If I no longer have the rights I thought I did, then say so. Change the law and tell me that my home and my family are now officially at risk. Tell me what the new rules are and I'll play by them, or I'll leave and go someplace where I like the rules better. I'm pretty sure that's still allowed. But this idea that there is one rule for me, and another for the police is very unnerving. That the rule for the police is 'we'll let you know what we need when it comes to it', even more so.

There is a flip side to this 'ignore the law' coin. We are, for instance, completely ignoring America's immigration laws. I don't believe someone who sneaks across the border to get a job applying roofing tar in Houston in the 110 degree heat is morally the same as a convicted murderer. And I don't believe they should be treated the same either. I don't know anyone who does. But neither do I think I am safe if we allow the government to ignore some laws and not others. Because I require the law to be safe in my home and in my person, I require our government to insist that our illegal immigrants not be allowed legal status.

Does this make me a racist? You aren't a man in 21st century America until someone somewhere accuses you of racism. And I do find that I'm increasingly persuaded by the 'race realist' arguments I hear. With that said though, I think we all know that if you're white, 'racism' is almost always in the eye of the beholder. But in this particular case I don't think it matters at all. I think we should enforce our immigration laws against Japanese, against Swedes, against Irish, and against any other group who may be here illegally. Race literally has nothing to do with it. It's a question of the law.

Of course, if we don't like the law as it is, then by all means let's have a discussion for changing it. Let's dismantle the bill of rights and replace them all with rules about preventing racist thinking if that's what you think we should do. Let's all have that debate right out here in front of god and everybody, and I'll have my piece to say about it when we do. Propose repeal of the second amendment, the fourth amendment, the first amendment, whatever you're uncomfortable with. I'll enthusiastically welcome your discussion and sign up for the debate right now.

But in the meantime, I need those laws. I need them to be enforced. We all do. Because equal enforcement of those laws is the only thing protecting us. If I've learned a single thing in my nearly 50 years as an American it s that the special cases will all apply to someone else. So what I need above all else, is equality under the law. I need equal enforcement until the law is changed. This conclusion isn't based on hatred of anyone or anything. I'm just not comfortable with the risks that any other solution provides.

The enforcers for the state cannot be trusted. We need protection from them just as we need them to protect us from others. And it's a very dangerous mistake to forget that.

Monday, April 22, 2013

- Salvaging Pat Toomey

I get that the fallback position of the Republican party is to try and give Pat Toomey's image a little polishing. But for my part, the Pennsylvania Senator can go F*** himself.

We already have one John McCain in the Senate. And in my mind that's one too many. I have every intention of donating the statutory limit to any politician who challenges Toomey if they have an A rating from the NRA. I'll even give money to any left leaning Democrat who meets that condition.

It's better to have honest enemies than disloyal friends.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

- My Gun Control Post Mortem

I suppose some of you have been waiting for me to post some kind of broader post mortem on the gun control Bill. There are enough of them around from the dejected left, so I suppose it's only fair.

I don't think it was a question of money spent, or phone calls, or any of the things that leftists will tell you drives the lobbying effort in Washington. It was the NRA that won, that's for certain. But I don't think it was because they hounded anyone. I think in the end, the NRA leadership made it clear to the politicians that the cost benefit wasn't there for them.

NRA members like me are completely devoted to the idea that we will not be disarmed by any law. Pass a law demanding we turn in our guns and we will break it. And all you will have accomplished is to turn 100 million previously law abiding citizens into criminals who are in open defiance of your law. In fact, passing a law like that could very well end up causing an armed uprising. This is because the members of the NRA would rather die than live as slaves, and we believe that if you disarm us, then over time that's exactly what you'll turn us into.

In my lifetime, liberals have always scoffed at this idea. They claim to only want some tiny incremental improvement in current law - hardly a cause for concern. But the NRA isn't fooled by incrementalism. They've seen what incrementalism has won for the progressive movement since they abandoned their grasp on reality back in the 60's. And the NRA knows that the progressive movement now has them backed into a cultural corner.

Low information voters that will always respond to the kind of emotional blackmail that Obama is so good at, will back them at every turn. And liberals have done all they can to foster the growth of the low information voter pool. So the NRA's reaction to that is to not only not give them an inch, they won't give them even a single grain of sand. No emotional blackmail will do it. No name calling will help. For the NRA there is absolutely no retreat from here. They know it's really the only way to fight liberals and win.

Try to imagine a circumstance where the government passes a law that results in a civil uprising. Taking away the free Obama-phones and debit cards of the dependent classes might be enough to do it. But in the end those people aren't really very good at anything - even overthrowing their masters. They lack the character to stand up for themselves - it's how then ended up dependent on the government in the first place.

Take away the 'free' stuff that they get from the rest of us, and they may riot and loot the Best Buy in downtown Baltimore to get themselves a flat screen TV. They'll rob a Korean grocer or two and maybe beat an unfortunate truck driver or two to death. But in the end they'll just be using it as an excuse to steal things. Eventually they'll be reduced to telling sympathetic TV reporters how wrong it is that their entitlements aren't being met by others, and robbing mostly from each other.

But if government were to start confiscating the firearms of law abiding Americans, in two weeks there would be a congressman hanging from every lamp post on Connecticut Avenue. In 4 weeks major portions of the Army would be in open revolt. The people who would be rising up in that situation are serious people. They are business leaders, men of substance. They are the 'other people' whose money is so generously redistributed by those in Washington. They are the same kind of men and women who founded this country in the first place, and would have little trouble doing it again.

So progressives can pass a law banning all firearms, but seeing it done is another matter entirely. And our politicians know this so it serves as a great restraint on their behavior. The cost benefit to them of banning firearms, or for that matter going against the NRA, simply isn't there. Because the NRA treats every encroachment on the rights of free citizens, as the first step in that effort. Which of course it is. Even liberals will tell us so now and then.

This is why the NRA won and Mike Bloomberg and the gun control movement lost. In the end it was because the NRA and it's members were never really going to take no for an answer, no matter what the politicians did. Don't like it? too bad. We have guns. And so long as we have them, we aren't going to let anyone take them away. It literally is like Leonidas and his men at Thermopylae. You want them? Come and take them. We'll see how that works out for you.

Molon Labe.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

- Hitler Learns Of Gun Control's Failure

This one is for you chess.

- Free Advice For Jihadi's

Chris Christie wants to be President one day, but like most blue State liberal Republicans, he knows he has to thread the needle between respect for the free citizens on the right, and the domineering intrusive will of the loons on the left.

He's trying to do that on gun control by providing a list of measure that only wear away a little at the edges of citizen's rights (like measures to ensure mental health records are included in background checks, etc) and that throws one small bone to the 'ban all weapons' crowd at the far left. He's decide it will make great leaps toward solving NJ's violent crime problem to ban the Barrett .50 caliber rifle.

The Barrett (shown above) weighs 38 lbs. Pick a woman off the street and she could barely pick it up let alone carry it. Most men can lift a 40 pound rifle, but it's also 58 inches long so they won't be able to do it discreetly. Concealing it is out of the question. When you are holding a Barrett .50 caliber, it's no secret. You can almost make it out on google map's satellite pictures.

My gun club is too near to McGuire Air Force base to allow large caliber weapons. While an accident would be unlikely, large bullets retain energy long enough to theoretically hurt someone at that distance. So we exclude them from use just to be totally on the safe side. But even if we did allow them, no one would shoot them. Their cartridges cost $11 apiece and the expense alone is enough to discourage virtually all shooters. So banning them in NJ isn't going to have a big effect. But in a free self governing country, that isn't really the point.

There is an analogy that is fitting for this. Suppose Christie had banned driving Abrams tanks on NJ public roads. No one in NJ (to my knowledge anyway) owns an Abrams tank. No one wants to buy an Abrams tank, and if someone did want to buy one, the odds that he would want to use it for his morning commute are tremendously small. The mileage is terrible and the ride disastrous. There are no leather seats. It costs about 9 million dollars and is powered by a 1500hp turbine engine, but it still only goes about 45mph on the highway. Don't even get me started on it's cornering. So if Chris Christie were to ban them on NJ's public roads, would it make a big difference in 'drive by shootings' or anything else for that matter? Almost certainly not. And in a state where so few people own one, the same is probably the true of the Barrett 50 caliber.

But the Barrett .50 BMG has gotten a lot of press with the firearm illiterate crowd (you know... the press). They believe it can be used to shoot down airplanes, and that it magically transforms it's wielder from an illiterate mildly crazy Jihadi, into a highly trained long range shooting specialist, capable of hitting a small target at great distance. They believe it's the firearm that's the danger not the shooter. But this is nonsense.

I have a great example for this. Last week my brother and I took his 13 year old son and 15 year old daughter out to the rifle range for a little fun. I put a target frame at 50 yards (our closest frame range) and hung seven apples from it at varying heights. We took out my AR15 which is set up as a target carbine with a heavy barrel for extra accuracy. At 50 yards with this rifle it's possible for a precision shooter to put a single 5.56mm hole in a target at 50 yards and pass bullets through that hole all day long without touching the paper. At that range it's completely accurate - as accurate (in effective terms) as any rifle in the world.

His son is a beginning shooter, and we gave him several magazines. Out of 45 rounds he managed to knick one apple. His daughter, also a beginner, hit one as well with 45 rounds. My brother was trained to shoot the AR15 in the US Army and still needed an entire magazine to break 4 apples (they don't necessarily explode in a single hit). It's my rifle and I shoot it pretty well. But even I needed a full magazine to break the remaining 3. We were just screwing around and having fun. Had our lives depended on it at least my brother and I could have done much better, but I think it makes the point. The rifle is accurate, it's the shooter who misses.

With all this I'm talking about an apple sized target at 50 yards, which to most serious recreational shooters is known as 'incredibly close'. Now imagine shooting the stem of the apple at 50 yards. Then imagine shooting the aphid on the stem of the apple without touching the stem. Then imagine shooting the tip (just the tip) of the left antennae on the aphid on the stem of that apple. Now imagine doing it in high winds, with a dozen or so other guys shoot back at you. That's what long range shooting is about. Virtually no one can do it well, because apart from intense training it also requires a lot of natural talent. And doing it with a .50 BMG doesn't make you do it any better. That's just one more terrified fantasy of firearm illiterate liberals.

Want to know how concerned I am about .50 caliber (or any other) sniper crime? I'm so unworried that I'm now going to give advice to that prospective jihadi sniper who is so crestfallen that his dream weapon is about to be declared illegal by the idiots in the NJ legislature (as if that would stop him). You, Mr. Jihadi, would be much better off at achieving the dreams of the prophet, with a .338 lapua sniper rifle like this one:

It's less than 1/3 the cost of a Barrett, fires a bullet cheap enough to practice with, and has a similar effective range against human targets as the .50 BMG. You can't shoot it through the wall of an Abrams tank like a .50 BMG, (the .50 caliber is really an anti-material round, not for shooting people) but as we discussed before, we won't be seeing many of them in NJ so you're probably OK on that score. And when you try to heft one into the liquor store to rob the cash register, you won't have to spend as much time at the gym to be able to carry it around with you.

The .338LM is arguably even more accurate at long range than the .50 BMG and the firearm illiterate press has never heard of it. So the odds of a bunch of dopey grammar school teachers demanding it be banned 'for the children' is quite small. It's flatter shooting (look it up) and at any range that you are likely to hit what you're shooting, it will put a hole in your target large enough to be indistinguishable from one made by a .50 BMG. It's the anti-American's sniper's obvious choice.

The people who want to ban guns are simpletons. They are terrified of things they don't understand, and Chris Christie is throwing them a bone by proposing a ban for the Barrett .50 BMG. They want it done for the principle. "We have to Ban something!!!" you can hear them wail. Chris Christie hears it and is willing to accommodate them, in spite of their simple mindedness. But that's a mistake if he wants to be president.

Gun owners know that there has been no crime with a .50 BMG anywhere in the US. We also know that these guns scare liberals and that's why liberals want them banned. But we don't want our constitutionally protected rights infringed upon, just because liberals are afraid of things. The NRA and America's 100 million gun owners will remember that Chris Christie accommodated the illiterate 'gun ban' crowd on principle, simply because he could. It will mean that he can't be trusted. Certainly not to be president.

He isn't trying to prevent crime by banning the Barrett .50 BMG, and he isn't trying to keep children safe. He isn't trying to protect civilians or keep the peace, or to balance the safety of Americans with the rights of citizens. He isn't trying to do any of the things that Americans want their government to actually do, or the even fewer things that it's supposed to actually do under the law. What he's trying to do is give the gun banning liberals in NJ a theoretical victory. He's trying to give them a win on 'principle'. But that principle is no way for a free people to self govern.

Those people are crazy, illiterate, terrified irrational people. We should never base public policy on the rantings of people like that. But in NJ they are a serious political movement. They want their fear to trump the constitutionally protected rights of people they politically oppose. They want them disarmed in some small way, even if it's to no actual effect whatsoever. And Chris Christie wants to give them their 'win' and believes he'll be able to explain it away later. But when he runs for President, I can guarantee he will regret giving it to them.

Friday, April 19, 2013

- The Door To Door Search

If the kid they're searching for in Boston had escaped in my neighborhood, of course I wouldn't let him in my house. But I wouldn't let these guys in either. When the swat team shows up to search my house they better have a warrant or they aren't getting in - I don't' care what kind of emergency they say they have. Those laws seem silly to them, but they are the only protection I have.

So what do we know about the as yet not dead kid? Not too terribly much. I'm sure no one is surprised to discover that he's an Obama fan. Intuitively this makes sense. Obama wants to destroy America so he can rebuild it in his vision from the ashes, while this kid seems to just want to buy in to the first half of the Obama agenda.

Beyond that though, we really don't know much at all about his motives. I'm not quite ready to declare him a lone gunman yet, but base don the headlines I'm leaning that way. Surely a devoted Muslim will be portrayed that way by the media as the Ft. Hood shooter was.

For my part though I think it's better to wait and see.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

- Selfish And Shortsighted

Mika Brzezinski, the dumbest woman on television, thinks it's selfish and shortsighted to value the liberty of free citizens over the emotional benefit lo liberals of passing ineffective laws that do little except infringe on citizens rights, and garner even more power for politicians.

Personally I think it's selfish and shortsighted of her to place her feelings on this issue over the well being of all those Americans, but que sera sera. That whole 'Constitution" is passe anyway right Mika?

What a buffoon she is.

- O'Donnell: NRA Responsible for Boston Bombing

If the NRA is such a dangerous organization then I'd be a little more careful what I said about them, you worthless propagandizing piece of refuse. I know for my part I'm furious that you would toss out such a blatant piece of slander about me.


I beat Ikaika to the punch on this video by seconds. He was still editing his version of the same post when I hit 'publish' on mine. since that's so, I think you should see his comment on the front page as well:



if any harm comes to me or my family because of the injurious statements of Lawrence O'Donell regarding the NRA and NRA Members, I will hold you entirely responsible. The NRA has 5,000,000 members, maybe they should be referred to as 5,000,000 plaintiffs after the harmful slander delivered by your employees. I expect not only an apology by your company and each and every one of its employees, but I demand that Lawrence O'Donell should be fired.

Comparitively speaking, Alex Jones demonstrates balance anc civility.

I will boycott the sponsors of MSNBC, NBC and GE until I have my satisfaction. If 5,000,000 plaintiffs cannot get satisfaction, then I wouldn't be surprised if they seek the aid of the legal system.



Wednesday, April 17, 2013

In re Dubov

I thought I would share a recent win on an interesting 2A case.

There is a case here in NJ called In re Dubov, 410 N.J. Super. 190 (App.Div. 2009), which goes into great detail about the procedure the police and the courts must follow, before they can deny a Purchase Permit and a Firearms Purchase Identification Card. The official report of the case describes that Mr. Dubov selected Brian Johnson as one of his to required application references. It goes on to state that, “In response to a telephone inquiry by a member of the East Windsor Police Department, Johnson allegedly made negative comments concerning appellant's fitness to own a firearm.” Id. 410 N.J. Super. at 193.

Well, there is a little more to it than that. According to the officer who did the telephone interview, Mr. Johnson said, “The kid is totally out of his mind, and I don’t trust him. He will probably use it on himself.” I know this, because I have read the transcripts and examined all of the evidence presented in the new trial that the In re Dubov court required.

You might not be surprised to learn that the court again denied Mr. Dubov a permit on October 29, 2010, at the end of fair trial.  On appeal, the court discussed that, “A 'person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives,' must be issued a permit and FPIC unless, 'issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare[.]'" N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). In re Dubov, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1957, 11 (App.Div. Aug. 14, 2012). In discussing that Dubov fell into this catch-all reason for prohibition, the court said it, "[S]hould give appropriate consideration to the [c]hief's investigative experience and to any expertise he appears to have developed in administering the statute."

Mr. Dubov argued that the lack of a standard for “investigative experience” in the determination of a Chief made the regulatory scheme a violation of his personal 2A right. The court rejected these arguments, reasoning that, “the Constitution leaves ‘a variety of tools’ to control gun violence, including ‘laws imposing conditions and qualifications’ on the sale of arms.” Id. at 15 citing District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-27, 636 (2008). You are probably not surprised that the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the denial of the permit this January.  In re Dubov, 213 N.J. 45 (2013).

I am afraid I am personally responsible for dealing some more bad news to Mr. Dubov. It became known to Mr. Dubov’s Criminal Justice Professors, near the time of the Virginia Tech massacre, that he was applying for a gun permit.  The professors came forward with a June 18, 2008 letter addressed to Superior Court Judge Darlene Pereksta, who was adjudicating the appeal from the Police Chief’s denial. The letter contained information about their observations about Mr. Dubov’s behavior, and the number of credits he had earned from the school. Mr. Dubov then sued his professors for invasion of privacy, claiming they were a big reason why he did not get his permit.

In defending the professors, my firm argued that the common law of privacy includes a public safety privilege that permits the publication of facts to law enforcement that ordinarily people might consider to be private. This is not a well settled area of the law, and we had to draw upon the concept of the “newsworthiness” privilege in defamation cases. But the Court accepted our argument, and dismissed Dubov’s invasion of privacy case on February 22, 2013.

I am not trying to puff myself up here, even though I did some damned good legal work. The point I can make, though, is that there is always a back story, which may not make it to the official report of a case. Once Johnson said what he said, Dubov could not win. Ever.

I am not a statistician, but when a coin keeps falling on one side, there are no longer any coincidences.  

- Frank Lautenber'gs Last Mistake

As we know, Disco Frank Lautenberg will be retiring from the Senate this year after 136 years in office. And as the gun control law requiring background checks for weapons dies it's timely death, Lautenberg has introduced another piece of idiotic legislation:

As a result of Monday’s bombing in Boston, New Jersey senator Frank Lautenberg will introduce legislation requiring background checks for the sale of explosive powder. Lautenberg is also filing the bill as an amendment to the gun legislation currently being debated on the Senate floor.

“It is outrageous that anyone, even a known terrorist, can walk into a store in America and buy explosives without any questions asked,” Lautenberg said in a statement earlier today. “If we are serious about public safety, we must put these common-sense safeguards in place. While the police have not revealed what specific explosive materials were used in Boston, what we do know is that explosive powder is too easy to anonymously purchase across the country.”

I'm traveling this week. In my office at home is an 8lb container of Alliant Red Dot Powder, which as we know, is typically used for reloading shotgun shells and other ammunition. If Frank knew anything about it's uses, he would know that smokeless powder makes a horrible explosive And there are also about 10,000 products out there which can be used to make a more effective explosive by any kid with a high school chemistry book.

But Frank has been on the wrong side of history his entire career, and couldn't stop infringing upon the liberty of free citizens if he tried.

Glad to see you go Lautenberg.

Is this the Bomber 2

Several years ago I was talking about technology yielding a security dividend.  Now comes the interesting part.  How do you extract useful data from the noise?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Update

-Is This "The Boston Bomber"?

Tom had asked me to post one or a few of these picks. Perhaps some of you have seen the recent work of Internet sleuths. I assume our humble host will update/edit this thread at will, so I will present the analysis as it appears on the link.

There are a lot of photos and some skilled time-lapses or timed-screen captures that show some interesting perspectives.
I hope they catch the bastards and allow the Boston Police to "interview them" before they get sent to Gitmo.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

-That Didn't Take Long! Fools Rush In.

In the wake of the Boston Bombings, almost immediately there was an urge on the part of the media and encouraged by the left-wing to point the finger of blame squarely on anyone that expresses a protest or associates with small government organizations... mainly "right wingers!"

After all, we are reminded by media types like Simon "C3PO" Hobbs of CNBC that this was around the anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing, Tax Day, Patriot Day... and then Simon went on to rewrite history that Timothy McVeigh's actions were in protest to the the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban...

Luckily for us, CNBC producers and directors realized that the majority of people that view their network probably lean towards the right side of the spectrum and agree with the idea of a smaller less intrusive government. That doesn't make them terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, Simon.
Equating your viewers with terrorists is not good for business... unless you are Al Jazeera, LINK, or Rolling Stone.

Not only are the left incapable of maturity and humility or just holding their tongues for at least 24 hours, they prove Tom's point over and over again: they are not the adults at the table. This now applies to every possible situation.

The NRA and Wayne LaPierre, in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings were immediately vilified by the media and rabid leftist organizations. The bodies were still being counted when the first invectives from the left were hurled. 

The media failed to understand that there is a time for remarks and speculations and a time for respect for those affected. The NRA observed what was once an expected, common protocol: give the families time to mourn and don't conflate politics for facts. LaPierre issued a statement immediately after Sandy Hook that they would refrain from issuing a statement out of respect for the families. It wasn't good for the media and outspoken leftists.

Based on the limited evidence, all we know is that the bombing looks like it was done by someone that has experience and knowledge of the types of devices used in the Middle East. John Miller of CBS had mentioned this on one of the earliest reports, although he tends to believe this may not be the work of a well known organization. At least he avoids over speculation.

There will be political repercussions on many fronts, however people like Alex Jones deserve no publicity and a severe 'cuffing' for pulling stunts at press conferences. Jones is not one of ours, but he is entitled to free speech and free press.

If it is revealed that this was an act by an Islamic terror group, the media will be unable to bury this story like the Gosnell story. I am betting that it was done by an Islamic terror cell only because of what we have witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan and what Israel has experienced on their streets.

The following is only a small sample of the conviction of the American Left.

"The word has taken on a different meaning since 9/11," Axelrod said of the phrase "terrorist attack."
"You use those words and it means something very specific in people's mind. And I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this -- it was tax day. Was it someone who was pro--you know, you just don't know. And so I think his attitude is, let's not put any inference into this, let's just make clear that we're going to get the people responsible."

Michael Moore Puts 2+2 together

Chris Matthews: "Domestic Terrorists Tend To Be On The Far Right"

More Chris Matthews Idiocy
Cynthia McKinney blames police for bombing
There are plenty more examples, but its been less than 24 hours and RFNJ doesn't have enough "space" to list them all. It needed to be documented.

Pressure Cooker Bombs!
These types of pressure cooker explosives have been used in Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Pakistan, according to a July 2010 joint FBI and Homeland Security intelligence report. One of the three devices used in the May 2010 Times Square attempted bombing was a pressure cooker, the intelligence report said.


I normally take this source with a heaping tablespoon of salt:

FBI Special Agent Richard Deslauriers told reporters Tuesday, April 16, that the probe had no leads 18 hours after two explosions blew up at the annual Boston Marathon’s finishing line, killing three people and injuring 176 – 17 critically. debkafile’s counterterrorism sources can disclose however that the investigation has in fact homed in on a suspected terror cell of three Saudi nationals, very possibly tied to Al Qaeda.
The flat they share in the Revere, Massachusetts, near Boston, was searched after the questioning of one of the suspects, a Saudi student, who was hospitalized with badly burned hands. One of his flatmates was taken into custody over “visa problems.” A third is on the run. All three hail from a prominent Saudi family belonging to a tribe from the Asir province bordering on Yemen.

The search for the wanted man led to the grounding of a plane at Logan International Airport Tuesday.  The investigation has meanwhile broadened out to places in and outside Boston in a search for the cell’s accomplices.
The origins of the Saudi cell, if confirmed, strongly suggest that Al Qaeda of Arabia – AQAP –succeeded in planting a cell in the United States for the bombing attack in Boston – and possibly more than one in other parts of the US.

- Now A Word From The Smartest Man In America

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Dr. Thomas Sowell:

The dirty little secret is that gun-control laws do not actually control guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws. In England, armed crimes skyrocketed as legal gun ownership almost vanished under increasingly severe gun-control laws in the late 20th century. (See the book Guns and Violence by Joyce Lee Malcolm.) But gun control has become one of those fact-free crusades, based on assumptions, emotions, and rhetoric.

What almost no one talks about is that guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. In fact, many of the horrific killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and put a stop to the slaughter. The Cato Institute estimates that there are upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. Preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves can cost far more lives than are lost in the shooting episodes that the media publicize. The lives saved by guns are no less precious just because the media pay no attention to them.

Many people who have never fired a gun in their lives and never faced life-threatening dangers nevertheless feel qualified to impose legal restrictions that can be fatal to others. And politicians eager to “do something” that gets them publicity know that the votes of the ignorant and the gullible are still votes.

We on the right are careful not to trust 'experts' too often, and the same should be true of Dr. Sowell. But he's built a 35 year career where he's exposed insight after insight, all of which seem incredibly obvious after the fact. So I think it's in our interests to at least give the man a listen.

Monday, April 15, 2013

-Terror Bombing at Boston Marathon

I am not an expert. I was in NYC during 9/11.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts this was imported from the Middle East...


Boston Marathon Explosions: Dozens Wounded as Two Blasts Hit Finish Line

Lots of gruesome pics on the web. No reason to link it or reprint it.
If you have family there, my prayers for their safety I offer.

After 9/11, we knew it would only be a matter of time until a storefront or car bomb would be used.
The first publicized car-bomb attempt was Times Square.

Brian Williams can't figure out why the mere presence of police officers would not guarantee safety. He is an idiot. I feel sorry for the men in law enforcement and their loved ones that are no doubt in harms way and possibly have been harmed in being deployed to protect and serve.


2 people died, 1 was an 8 year old boy.
Rumors of three unexploded devices surfacing. US Navy sending Bomb Disposal Unit to assist.
More reports saying that at least one device used Ball-Bearings, earmarks of a Middle East style IED.
Low Trajectory Explosion further connected with Mid East IEDs.


3 people were killed and over 120 injured.
Still unsure if there were 5 bombs in all including unexploded ordinance.
No terror organization has laid claim to this... yet.
My gut says free-lancers as instructed and encouraged by the Al Qaeda digital publication  known as "Inspire". Michael Moore immediately jumped to the conclusion that some anti-tax group did this because he is a simpleton.
The devices contained ball bearings and other crude projectiles. These were designed for maximum carnage with a low trajectory. Same design of trip-mines or IED's used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Designed to cut the legs out from our soldiers. Not necessarily to kill, but to rack-up mass causalities. This gives the perpetrators plenty of time to either flee or observe from a distance without being detected.
The one question is how were the trash can bombs planted without detection? That steers me towards a homegrown element or at least a person of unremarkable ethnic features was used to blend in and plant the devices during preparations for the marathon or during the race when all attention is focused away.
The group with the most anger towards Boston is probably Occupy Boston or someone that latched onto that movement for nefarious reasons. We know that Occupy attracted all sorts of rubbish and yesterday an Ohio judge ruled that the Occupy Cleveland Bomb Plot Suspects are Fit for Trial.

- If It Seems Quiet To You...

...it's because Frith is trying to earn a living, and Ikaika and I have been texting back and forth about why rappers don't sing song's about double barrel shotguns.

Ikaika: "matched barrels, skeet chokes, extra full with menthol smokes."

Vanilla ice, eat your heart out.

(We're actually discussing the minutiae of NJ firearms law for an upcoming event. I think there is a group blog post in the offing that will explain it all, once Frith gets a minute free from his backbreaking schedule.)

-Gold Hangover

If you don't live in a cave you woke up Friday and saw Gold getting pummeled.
The pummeling continues today.

Before I continue: Disclaimer: My views don't represent anyone else's here and in no way am I offering this as investment advice. Take this as an historic observation.

The initial sell-off is from Goldman Sachs cutting their Gold forecast as well as their Gold holdings.
On Thursday Cyprus denied reports that it would sell their Gold reserves to cover the bail-in.
On Friday Morning, Gold gets pummeled while the Troika was paying a visit to Dublin. After the Dublin Meeting, Mario Draghi let the cat out of the bag, and word spread that Cyprus was ordered to sell their gold.
This morning, the pros have nothing to say other than "Wow, didja see gold get hit?"
Their are some pros I believe have a better grasp on reality than tv talkers.
Dennis Gartman is one of them. Although Zero Hedge likes to give Dennis a bashing every now and then, A word to the folks at Zero Hedge: you've been on the wrong side of the trade for more than 18 months. There are no margin calls for bloggers.
Dennis has not been a Gold-Bug and has been cautious about the metal, albeit bullish. However in this day and age, to say Bullish on anything without being allowed to expound is wrongly construed as a sure-bet, especially by the blogosphere.
But aside from bulls and bears, expectations for the actions need consideration.
He sums it up right here and it's not that exciting for the news, but as a chronicler of  current European History, it's plain as the nose on our face and a big helping of reality.

"I think it would be unfair to force the Cypriots to sell [gold] and not to have others do exactly the same thing," he argued. "I expect Spain and Portugal, Italy will also be rumored to do it, and that's weighing on prices."

Why wouldn't nations in crisis sell some of their best performing asset to offset the pain?
Perhaps that the people at the top of the government pyramid believe that sapping the rich is a better than tapping a reserve?

I always believed that mad-rush into Gold would have precarious implications for all other asset classes. And I also believe these actions are exacerbated by the rise of ETF commodity index trackers.
Knowing that an ETF has one of the largest bullion positions in the world and knowing that an ETF that objectively tracks the index, in a period of Boom, the underlying will gap-up and the ETF shares will be purchased, and in a period of Bust, the underlying commodity as well as shares of the fund will get tagged.

What does this mean? Does this trigger margin calls in other asset classes? We may find out in a few minutes.

I think Auric Goldfinger would love Gold at any price...

Perhaps this is the reality of deflation?

Will it be followed by a Weimar Style Hyper-Inflation?

Maybe Obama will inject support into the Gold market since targeting calculable wealth seems to be a priority. I'm sure the traditions of gold jewelry or passing on coins to future generations will not go out of style.

I'd like to see the price of ammo sell-off... maybe this is a precursor? If So, I owe Tom a prize for calling the Ammo Top.

But I do need some 7.62x39 JHP or SP ammo soon. I'm doing a boar hunt in May.

-"You Didn't Save That! or "All Your Retirement Belongs to Us!"

After Cyprus collapsed and the thugs of the Troika decided that all the Bank Accounts in Cyprus should be raided, the ECB, the EC and the EU quickly ran to the nearest reporter and proclaimed: "Cyprus is not a Template!"

Well, for some it is a template:

Mr. Obama's $205,000 annual retirement income limit is calculated for someone age 62, to mirror the current IRS limit for qualified defined benefit plan annuities. Current law prevents anyone getting a benefit above that amount under a qualified defined benefit plan; benefits above that level are paid from non-qualified plans and are taxable. At today's interest rates, a $205,000 annual benefit (for 100% joint and survivor) works out to a maximum permitted accumulation of $3.4 million, the administration calculates.
But when the interest rates used to determine those annuity levels start rising, the $3.4 million cap can be much lower, and hit workers at an earlier age.
While the mechanics of adjusting for interest-rate changes would still need to be worked out, Mr. Sperling defended the idea of a formula capping retirement tax benefits. “Once you have an amount sufficient to retire at that number, you shouldn't get a tax break,” he told reporters.

I suggest you read the entire article.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

- Protect 2A

- I'ts Official, Gun Control Is Doomed

Obama is about to suffer his first genuine defeat at the hands of Republicans, with the NRA as their caretaker. How do I know? It's the basest sort of statistic, but it's better than anything that (Dwarven) Mayors Against Illegal Guns has produced:

Google Search Term: "Gun Violence" - 382,000,000

Google Search Term: "Gun Control" - 1,170,000,000

The first portrays the liberal side of the discussion where the bill is "intended to curb gun violence", while the second is the conservative take where the bill is the first step in a broader goal of "gun control". Freerepublic would never use the first term, and the Huffington Post would never use the second. So that's it. The people have spoken. In this case, they've spoken 788,000,000 more times.

Also, I'm just back from the range today where my brother and I took his son and one of his daughters shooting. The place was loaded with attractive women. The Derb mentioned the PJ O'Rourke rule the other day, where the movement with the best looking women is the one with the momentum. It's true at the gun range.

- The Best Kind Of Editorial

For my money, this is the very best kind of opinion writing. It clearly articulates the causes of what we on the right refer to as 'media bias' in a way that is not only very descriptive and accurate, but that any honest person on the other side would also be able to understand.

When I get frustrated with writing this blog (as I do from time to time) it's usually because I know I'm not really affecting the conversation. I'm saying the same old things to the same smallish group of people - most of whom are already in complete agreement with me. I wish I were able to write things that the other side was more willing to read and understand, but I suppose that's not my lot in life.

But give me a choice and that's exactly what I'd do. That's the kind of writing that would most fulfill my idea of how one should approach all issues in life. You don't shout at people and make them angry, you change their minds. You don't worry about winning the argument as much as revealing the truth to those who can't see it. If you're doing it right, you focus on achieving goals rather than just feeling good about you own positions.

One of those things I say all the time is that "I'd rather have people tell me they think I'm dead wrong but do what I want them to, than have them admit I'm right but tell me to F*** off." That's how you achieve goals. Don't worry about making the other guy admit defeat. Let him claim victory if he wants to. Just so long as he cooperates and you achieve the goal you set out to.

So in my mind, the very best article isn't one that articulates your position to your side in the way that is gratifying to them, but one that articulates your position to the other side in a way that's so persuasive they have no choice but concede the underlying point - even if they do it in their own way. That's what Milton Friedman did. That's what Ronald Reagan did. It's what I wish I could do, and it's what Ross Douthat is certainly doing in the piece linked above.

Now, I don't think Ross successfully meets the goal of persuading liberal journalists to be less biased. But he's certainly coming closer than I ever did. And if he's failing it's through no fault of his own.

Liberal success results in an erosion of their character. If they see enough success, that liberal becomes even more insecure and more defensive about their positions, even while the evidence against them begins to stack up. More of their identity and perceived 'self worth' gets tied up in believing in rainbows and unicorns, and when the unicorns don't arrive, it's because we 'didn't believe hard enough'. Eventually they become so committed to the fantasy that admitting reality becomes impossible for them. It would shatter their self image to do so.

Liberals have won a lot of arguments lately. So for most of them (certainly those in the media), honest introspection is so far beyond them that they would be furious at anyone who even suggested it. Think of that scene where Thomas Friedman petulantly screamed at Rick Santelli because Santelli didn't worship Friedman's (self perceived) wisdom, on a topic where Santelli was actually much more of an expert. This is the kind of interaction that media liberals have with conservative everywhere they go. Every time an aspect of reality pokes it's head up through the fog of liberal fantasy, their frail egos force them to play whack a mole with as much vigor as they can muster.

But I definitely have to give Ross Douthat props for trying. He's writing in the New York Times, in a style that makes a conservative point, to a liberal audience, in the best way that it can be made to them. It's so artful that it may very well be that some if his argument slips between the tiny cracks of defensiveness in the egos of just few liberals somewhere, and actually gets them to face some small portion of the truth about themselves.

And who knows, maybe opinion journalism is like my business. Maybe the only way you ever get any success is on the margins, and winning 51% is all you can hope for. Maybe he'll never convince a Tom Friedman or Paul Krugman to take an honest look at their views. Who could? But if there is some journalism student who may be more open to reality a decade from now because he read this piece while he was still young enough to change direction, then Ross will have achieved something noble.

Either way, this is one helluva stellar piece in my view.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

- Gun Controller's Motives

This video is from Star Parker. I find it persuasive. Gun control had it's origins in keeping blacks from owning the means of self defense. Now of course, it's really about disarming Republicans. But I continue to maintain that the NRA should be working non-stop to make inroads in the black community. It's their right too.

And while the crime rate in black communities is higher than in white communities, that doesn't mean there isn't a core of law abiding black citizens that should have every right under the law that anyone else does. No one should be working to disarm them either. Even less so because they are the one with the need to protect themselves.

- The NRA's Motives

I make it a point to read the opposition when it comes to second amendment issues. I know most of the readers of this blog will google now and then for gun control articles, and they are probably surprised at how little liberal writing they find. But it's out there.

The trick (with liberals there is always a trick) is to make sure you get the messaging right. Do a search for "gun violence" instead of gun control and liberals pop up all over the place. Remember, these people think they're the only reasonable people in the debate. And in their minds, actually referring to their gun control efforts as 'gun control' labels you as a spittle flecked anti-government extremist, just one very short step from being an Al-Qaeda member.

While the liberal writing on gun control is always liberal and therefore always contains elements of the big lie, some of it has become quite conciliatory. Take this piece from brainless Blake Zeff on Salon.com. It may be spun so hard that it's generating it's own electromagnetic field, but he gets so much of the politics right that you wonder if he isn't one of those liberals who is just a cynical hypocrite instead of a true believer. Then of course he ruins it by putting on his mind reading hat, peering into the heart of Wayne LaPierre, and getting absolutely everything dead wrong.

The concept of political principles is probably a difficult thing to teach to a liberal. To them a political principle is anything which concentrates power in the hands of the enlightened few - specifically them. Everything else is a matter of political expediency. So it's probably no surprise that Mr. Zeff is one of those people who completely misunderstand the motives of the NRA.

He and the politburo staffers at Salon seem to think it's some sort of 'industry' group, when it's really anything but. True, firearm manufacturers give to the NRA is substantial amounts. But foster a movement to make solar panels illegal and we'll see how much money green energy companies pump into lobbying. For gun manufacturers it's just a question of survival.

The real reason Mr. Zeff and the other drones in the 'bureau of public information' try so hard to paint the NRA as an industry group is because it makes them something that's easier to hate. It makes them into something that the little worker bee's of leftist propaganda can demonize. If they were to admit that the real strength of the NRA is me and the 5 million people like me, then they are no longer 'speaking truth to power'. They're just power hungry elitist bullies trying to take away the constitutionally guaranteed rights of a bunch of people who don't vote like they do.

I have no financial stake in any gun company. I benefit in no financial way from the proliferation of firearms in America. And yet, I'm an avid NRA member and support their political positions wholeheartedly. And the reason I do is because when I look at the NRA I don't see an industry group. What I see is the only organization in America who is standing up for me and my rights.

Putting a firearm in my hands is giving me power. That's what the NRA does. It argues that I and the people like me should be allowed to retain that power. It claims that the law of the land says that we shouldn't have to get anyone's permission to do it. It is utterly and unambiguously on my side. It's not saying it's on my side while really acting in it's own interest - that's often what Republican politicians do. The NRA is nobler than that. The NRA is standing up for the little guy, far more than Blake Zeff and the other propaganda officers in the army of the left ever have.

The left has made it's place in the world by giving people fish instead of teaching them to fish. And for their trouble they've bought an army of low information voters from single parent households who lack the self respect to be independent, or the character to improve their lives. Most of them, don't even want to anymore. They're perfectly happy to let their only economic act be to vote for someone who promises to pay all their bills for them. The rest they can get from the government.

But the NRA says that an American man is still a free man, and has a free man's rights. First and foremost among those rights is the right to defend your person, your property and your loved ones. That right supersedes all others because all others are dependent upon it. I know you folks on the left don't see it that way but it's true. Because if you lack the capacity to meet force with force, then who in the world will ever care what you have to say.


I find this piece incredibly encouraging. It paints a picture of a politically savvy NRA who is thinking about the cost benefit relationships involved in any legislation. It's keeping an eye on the challenges to various unconstitutional laws enacted at the state level, and it's looking forward into the future. It's acting in the best interests of it's members in a way that involves winning the battle and the war.

In effect it's doing the exact opposite of what the Republican party is doing. It's not out there trying to make the media like them. The NRA knows the media is never going to like them. They don't care about being invited to cocktail parties and having the popular kids think they're cool. They aren't selling out their constituency and their political principles for a chance to be invited on meet the press a little more often.

They are fighting the same kind of fight the Democrats do. A no holds barred all out battle on every front simultaneously with no compromise, and no surrender. The liberals can try to take their guns away, but when they do, they'll have to grab them by the hot pointy end. Because the NRA won't give up until they are completely out of ammo. (And then they'll go for the Bayonet.)

Like I said, very encouraging.

Friday, April 12, 2013

- The Philadelphia Story

I am unambiguously pro life, but as the worst Catholic in the western hemisphere, I don't generally drag my soapbox out very often for the issue. To quote Kevin Williamson (a much better Catholic than me) "I think everyone should be able to have sex with whoever they like, I just don't think anyone should have to die for it." But I think it's gotten to the point where I have to say something about The Philadelphia abortion doctor currently on trial for murder, Kermit Gosnell.

This story is horrific by any standard. I'd recommend that you watch the youtube video about it or any one of the articles around the web, but finish your lunch first. And even beyond the horror and gore, it's the kind of nightmare that will make the hardest heart break.

I point it out here only to call attention to the total breakdown of our news media's completely broken moral compass. As is apparent from this piece by Kristen Powers, one of the few liberals out there who still has a soul, they have chosen not to report this truly astoundingly horrible story because they didn't want the pro life movement to be able to say "I told you so."

They should be flogged in public for so obviously forsaking their duty to the public. I swear the next time I meet a reporter from Reuters or one of the networks, it's going to take all the will power I have to keep from simply smashing them right in the chops, and the devil with the assault lawsuit. And that's from the worst Catholic in the western hemisphere.

Gosnell is a world class monster in my opinion. The journalists are just second rate hypocrites.


I just skimmed the Grand Jury Report, I couldn't actually bring myself to read it.

---WARNING---There are photos in it---WARNING---

That a horror show like that could go on anywhere, or at any point in human history fills me with utter dread. If it were being done by Josef Mengele, we would have all believed it elevated him to a new level of monstrosity.

That the elites in our culture could defend and encourage that kind of behavior is evidence of our complete societal collapse. they shouldn't be our 'leaders' they should be in prisons. No wonder they refuse to cover this story. They don't want to let us see what utter monsters they themselves have become. They probably can't even face it themselves.

Don't believe me? Read the report. And then see if you can listen to one of those creatures from MSNBC make a speech about 'reproductive rights' without being filled with the desire to spit in their face.

- The "Gun Show Loophole" Remains

There never was a gun show loophole. It was an invention of anti-gun activists who needed a straw man to justify a national gun registry. So naturally, the bill that Pat Toomey has sacrificed his future political prospects to bring forward fails to do away with it.

The Text of the Bill is here, and I can barely understand a word of it. But if I take Robert VerBruggen's view as correct, it requires a background check for any advertised sale of a gun between private parties. This will change virtually nothing.

First of all, most gun owners are so concerned about liability that they already use an FFL for transfer, even between private parties who aren't family. Second, if this law is passed, I'm going to put a cute college girl at every gun show in the northeast selling hats that say "ask me about my gun" with a white space underneath, and for a small additional fee she'll stencil the name of the gun you're interested in selling, but most people will probably already know that you mean the gun you're carrying over your shoulder. So if you're really determined to scoff at the new law you can just go out in the parking lot, or the diner across the street, or make a deal to meet two days later. If you really want to break the law, this bill won't make that any harder.

This is the problem with gun control. They want to do all sorts of things they obviously aren't allowed under the second amendment. They keep saying it's about violence, but they only pass laws that will apply to non-violent conservative white guys. Pass a law that makes a crime with a gun a mandatory 25 year prison sentence and the NRA will fall all over themselves to support you.

The gun banners never do that. They don't really want to disarm their perceived 'victim class' of the white patriarchal bourgeois system, even if they are the ones who are committing virtually all the gun crime. What they really want to do is make it impossible for law abiding conservative white guys to get guns. So their efforts to stem 'gun violence' end up regulating all kinds of non-violent behavior. They end up as totally unenforceable byzantine dances into bizarro-world where it's illegal to hold you left hand on your right shoulder between 11:00AM and 2:00PM, if the sun rose after 7:13, or if it was cloudy that day. They then complain that their efforts to disarm America have been 'obstructed' and they need new restrictions.

I read someplace that this new law might make it possible for someone to buy a gun from a dealer who is outside their home state. (Who knows if it's actually true...maybe Frith can tell.) If that's so, then it will actually make my life and the life of NJ gun owners easier. We have no gun shows in NJ, and I can't currently buy a gun in PA, so I only end up buying ammo and other supplies at gun shows.

In my mind it's like being sent from the gulag to the work camp. The work camp may look awful to those people who were free before entering it, but from the gulag it doesn't look so bad.

That's life in NJ. Even the utter crackdown by the Feds is considerably less arbitrary and capricious than the laws we deal with every day. And naturally this infringement on the rights of a formerly free people is called:

The Safety And Second Amendment Rights Protection Act. The person who named it should be tried for Treason.


OK Dems you just found a way to get my vote. No kidding, a hardline (maybe the hardest line) NRA member and gun rights advocate is now inches away from supporting another useless 'feel good' gun ban measure that will be totally unenforceable without a national gun registry. Want to know why?

According to the NYTimes, the NRA is arranging for "concealed carry reciprocity" to be included in the bill, and the votes may be there to make it happen.

I live in a state with no gun shows, and (effectively) no legal concealed carry. I'll happily put up withe regulation of the former in order to get the latter, and fight the national registry fight when it comes to it. It's not a matter of me changing my principles or voting to feather my own nest. I'm as opposed to pointless gun control as I ever was.

But if that rider is attached to this bill would reactivate Second Amendment protection for a million NJ gun owners who have been without it for at least the past 20 years. That's an awfully big prize in my view, and is worth putting up with a little more unenforceable nonsense to get.