Or rather does it lead to the end of libertarianism? Eric, who has been on a roll lately, writes:

I’m sure I’m just being paranoid, but it seems to me that once you have a kid, you lose independence in a major way, and I do not refer to the loss of time spent taking care of the kid or earning the extra money it takes to raise a kid. I mean that suddenly, you’re supposed to be worried about what the other kids and their parents are doing, what the damned school is doing or not doing. Whether your kid is going to be drugged with Ritalin because he can’t sit still and pay attention to a moronic (and bored) teacher who can’t spell, add, subtract or teach, but who instead wants to yell at your kid about “gun violence,” tell him his country was founded by bigots who slaughtered and enslaved the world, and make him take classes in things like “anger management.”

As a new father, I do worry about the day Junior comes home and tells me her teacher said something stupid, political, offensive, or just plain wrong. I don’t worry that I’ll suddenly become an anti-gun extremist but I’ll be even more cautious about my firearms, household cleaners, tools, cooking utensils, electrical outlets, five gallon buckets, bathtubs, and the other miscellany around my house that could do her harm.

Full auto shotgun video. Sweet.

JR notes some hysteria:

The weapon known as the AR-15 is not a machine gun, but it’s close

No, it’s not close. The AR-15 differs pretty significantly from the M16 in terms of rate of fire and internal parts components. Bias or stupidity? I report, you decide.

Tennessee has an unconstitutional ban on shipping or receiving alcoholic beverages. This is a particular problem for me because, after a bet on a certain election (also illegal in Tennessee), some folks owe a beer.

The Supreme Court is looking at the issue and apparently it could have an impact on local wineries:

The Tennessee Valley Winery in Loudon attracts customers from across the country.

“Hawaii, New York, Alaska, a lot of people from Montana,” says owner Tom Reed.

Visitors can buy more than 22 varieties of wine in person. But under the law, the winery can’t ship the bottles to home addresses out of state. It can only be sent to wine and liquor stores.

“I thought that you could do it. Just automatically could. Did not know there was a law that said I couldn’t do that,” says customer Kathy Loy of Campbell County.

“Some states are calling it a felony, which is two and half years in jail and a $20,000 fine,” says Reed. “So, it’s not worth doing it. Sometimes its just a slap on the hands.”

I hope the court does the right thing so I can collect my beers without driving. If I were Kevin, one of the Brutal Huggers, Chris, Xrlq, or Smijer, I’d be nervous.

The accompanying footnotes are an integral part of these 10 commandments.

While I generally opposed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, which granted retired and off duty police the means to carry concealed weapons any where in the country, because it granted special privilege to special citizens, I understand why it was viewed as a good idea. More armed and trustworthy people on the streets can prevent crime. The Chicago Tribune, in its typical anti-gun hysterical way, opposes that idea:

At a time when the city is trying to get guns off the street, a new federal law that permits retired law-enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons promises to have the opposite effect, and the measure could cost Chicago taxpayers millions of dollars in legal claims, a senior city lawyer said Monday.

“Washington, D.C., should not decide who carries [weapons] in Chicago,” deputy corporation counsel Lawrence Rosenthal told the City Council’s Police and Fire Committee. “Very significant questions of liability are raised.”

The city could be named in suits alleging wrongful force simply because it issues identification cards to retired Chicago officers, opening the door for them to be armed, Rosenthal said.

Chicago goes back and forth every year with DC as murder capital of the world. Their strict gun ban isn’t working for them. The real problem Chicago seems to have is that they can’t control who gets the right to carry concealed weapons:

The right to carry concealed weapons under the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 applies to former officers who retired in “good standing.” But the act does not define what that means, and it provides the right to people who served “a wide variety of agencies” nationwide, Rosenthal said.

That means that a retiree “from some mosquito abatement district in Louisiana” conceivably could carry a weapon while visiting Chicago, he said.

“What the federal government is saying is that they are going to turn this country into the wild, wild West,” said Ald. Isaac Carothers (29th), the committee’s chairman.

The last ironic bit from the article:

“We’re in trouble,” said Ald. Ariel Reboyras (30th).

I think you’re in trouble now with the highest murder rate in the country.

Us anonymous guys in pajamas have no credibility, or so factions of the media say. When the media choose to be anonymous, it’s an editorial. In this particular case, that’s a good thing as I can’t see how someone would want to take credit for something so damn stupid. This Times Herald editorial on police and citizen uses of Tasers (my concern regarding tasers is well documented):

We certainly would support Taser’s ad campaign aimed at having private citizens buy their stun guns if data would show a corresponding decline in the number of handguns purchased.

That correlation is not entirely relevant. People buy handguns for target practice and hunting (in addition to self-defense). On solutions to the problem of citizens with Tasers:

Perhaps one answer would be to lower the voltage in Tasers available to the general public.

As a general rule, a home defense handgun should be comparable to what a police officer is willing to carry. For me, that would apply to Tasers as well. If using a Taser, I would want to incapacitate the individual, not piss them off.

Police shootings dropped by more than half and fatal shootings by 31 percent in 2003 due to the use of Tasers, according to an Associated Press story. We believe those numbers are extremely encouraging.

I’d like a cite for that. There are these things called hyperlinks. However, there are also cases where Tasers were clearly used when unnecessary, such as against a 6 year-old and a 75 year-old woman. Again with the gun comparison:

But anyone interested in stemming the proliferation of handguns must consider the stun gun as an alternative. Anyone on the right side of the law has no desire to shoot anyone else; stun guns could provide a solution.

Proliferation of handguns? What media bias? Lethal use of force is justified in self defense even for civilians. Even if they use a gun. I personally wouldn’t take my chances with a Taser to defend my family. They’re ineffective against multiple attackers and may not stop an intruder. However, not many folks can survive a 230 grain 45 ACP center mass.

Congress members voted 336 to 75 on the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. The 3,000 page document was passed without a final copy made available. Members of congress voted by a huge margin for a bill that there is no way in Hell all of them read. That’s pretty horrendous.

England, which has more violent crime than the US despite conventional wisdom, is currently pushing for right to unlimited self defense. Dave Kopel has a good article on it:

One reason that British burglars are so much bolder than their American cousins is that only about 4% of British homes legally possess a gun, whereas about half of American homes do. British police administrators require guns at home to be stored unloaded in a safe, and that ammunition be in a separate safe. No American jurisdiction has such extreme “safe storage” requirements. As a result, an American burglar who breaks into an occupied home faces a significant risk of getting shot.

As I detailed in an article in the Arizona Law Review, when an American burglar strikes at an occupied residence, his chance of being shot is about equal to his chance of being sent to prison. According to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are about half a million incidents every year in which an American burglar is scared away by a victim with a firearm.

Kevin has been on this story for quite some time, go there and scroll away. The fact that a man defending himself can be subject to the same (or worse) criminal penalties in England is hideous. I guess that’s the price you pay for being a subject. Americans are more like verbs.

During questioning, potential jurors were asked how they feel about gun control. I think the better question would be to ask how the feel about a man firing into a crowd.

Not the kind you think:

Jails and detention centers around the country must stop using police dogs to control immigration detainees as of Saturday under a new policy issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of Homeland Security, issued a memo to its field offices last month ordering them to refrain from contracting with lockups that use dogs around detainees.

And why:

Dogs are used to accompany prisoners being transferred to and from the infirmary, or to break up fights.

National Public Radio last month aired a report and made public documents describing a dog attack at the jail. The jail temporarily stopped using dogs around detainees last month, but recently resumed the practice.

Dog attacks can be pretty brutal, particularly from a dog trained to attack. I’ve worn my fair share of sleeves and taken a few hits. Dogs are quite impressive and deadly when the need arises. A well trained dog has an on/off switch and views that attack as a game. Once the dog is done, it’s business as usual.

If you’re reading this blog, some of the best arguments occur in comments. Like this one.

FALARAK at AR15.com shows us how to make our own low profile front sight base out of an existing front sight base. Pretty cool. It’d be cooler if he showed us how to cut a Weaver rail into it.

Also, up next are step by step instructions on how to legally turn your Saiga into a pistol grip, regular AK magazine accepting, folding stock configuration. Definitely worth the read. In fact, I see SayUncle’s next project in the future.

Yeah, this WECSOG* stuff may bore some of you, but I dig it.

Gun law rant: It seems to matter to the .gov whether or not the parts that comprise a weapon that looks like an AK47 are imported or not (USC Sec 18 922 ( r ) and 925 (d). You can see more here. I didn’t know this. Apparently, in order to assemble an AK clone from a Saiga, only 10 parts can be imported. So, you have to buy a Saiga then replace some of the internals with American parts. At that point, you can fix it to accept pistol grips, stocks, and regular capacity magazines. So, what you have is a completely arbitrary and reasonably stupid law that serves no purpose other than making us buy American.

* Wile E. Coyote School of Gunsmithing

Assault SUVs – Washington DC

The answer is clear, we must ban them. For the children. These implements of death were only designed for one thing:

To run down as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. Their high fuel capacity (some hold fifty gallons and are equipped with multiple fuel tanks!) only serve to let them run down more people for a longer period of time. These SUVs are often civilianized versions of military vehicles that have no place in civilized society.

“These vehicles serve no legitimate transportation purpose,” said a token hysterical representative of the activist group Sport Utilities Cause Killing (SUCK). “There is no need for these monstrosities when a nice Honda Civic will do,” SUCK continued “After all, a 113 pound women whose only significant cargo is a bag of groceries and a snotty 4 year-old doesn’t need one of these killing machines.”

Joe Bob, of the extremist SUV Lobby, said “What the Hell are you talking about? You know you people are crazy, right?”

The military features of these SUVs are designed to kill. Their high fuel capacity (can stay on the road longer to kill more), over-sized engines (more power means more squish), shitty turning radius (if they could turn on a dime, they’d kill less people), large tires and height from the ground (for clearing obstacles that get between them and killing people) only add to their killing efficiency. We must act now.

SayUncle asks congress now to enact a ban on these killing machines. For the children.

I seem to catch some flak from my more conservative readers since I don’t oppose gay marriage. Why do I support it? For cases like this:

In 1999, a lesbian couple, Tina Burch and Christine Smarr, had a child in West Virginia. Smarr, the biological mother, was killed in a car accident in 2002. Her parents have spent the last two years seeking to take custody from her partner (the surviving parent) in West Virginia’s courts.

Taking a five year old from one of the only parents he has known? Who does this benefit?

If you’re looking for more ways than loud music or reruns of Saved By the Bell to kill your brain, look no further than simply washing your hair. Especially if you are a rat. Yes, it seems that there is a chemical in shampoo and other such products that might or might not give you dain bramage.

My mother is always keeping me up-to-date on the latest things that can kill you by causing cancer or whatever. Stuff like electric blankets or farm-raised salmon (but she uses Sweet & Low, which says right on the package that it causes cancer in laboratory rats–go figure). She never told me that washing my hair can kill me.

Of course, anything can kill you or cause brain damage. Even water. Is this a case of scientists with nothing better to do than research shampoo side-effects, or is there really a problem? We report, you decide… But I’ll be waiting on the next Pantene commercial: “Pantene…ridding your head of dirt and neurons. Some users of Pantene may experience side effects, such as brain damage, miscommunicative neurons, or anal leakage. If symptons persist, contact your doctor immediately.”

A local gay military person is part of a group suing over the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy (you know, that super-duper, pro-gay rights policy that a Democrat gave us):

The Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is being challenged by 12 gays who have been separated from the military because of their homosexuality.

They planned to file a federal lawsuit Monday in Boston that would cite last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling that overturned state laws making gay sex a crime.

One of them is Justin Peacock, a former Coast Guard boatswain’s mate from Knoxville. He was kicked out after someone reported he was seen holding hands with another man.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell,” was put in place during the Clinton administration to allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military only if they kept quiet about their sexual orientation and abstain from homosexual activity. The Pentagon’s previous policy barred homosexuals from military service.

I’m honestly indifferent regarding the gays in the military thing. The reason is, assuming someone is openly gay, that other straight soldiers (who are generally not known for their open-mindedness) may take issue and be unwilling to serve with them, defend them, or stick their neck out for them; or, worse, commit violence against their gay compatriots. Additionally, closeted gays in sensitive positions may be victims of blackmail that could compromise their security position. At the end of the day, soldiers have a job to do and if someone being gay interferes with that job, it is problematic and somebody may get killed over it.

That said, if someone is gay and wants to be soldier and other soldiers don’t seem to have a problem with it, I don’t see there being a problem. And, of course, we can’t segregate gay units from straight units as segregation is an ugly word.

Seems like a dangerous precedent to me but I don’t find it completely unreasonable:

Watch this carefully. Lewinski’s experiments have shown a suspect can fire, turn his back, and begin running, in just 18/100th’s of a second.

“The fastest was a forty-one-year-old women. She simply rotated her hips.”

It takes an average officer 33/100ths of a second to respond, and that’s with their finger on the trigger. The difference, is more than enough time for the bullet to hit the back.

It does not sound unreasonable to me that this is the case. But I do wonder how many defensive gun uses by private citizens result in someone getting shot in the back for the same reason? Then, of those, how many are prosecuted under the claim it wasn’t self-defense as the target was shot in the back?

Under Color Of Law:

Police officers, prison guards and other government officials who improperly abuse the rights of individual Americans have long been recognized in federal law as a threat to society as a whole. That’s why, immediately after the Civil War, Congress approved Title 18 USC 242 — a statute making it a crime to deprive any person of their rights “under color of law.”

But, as case-by-case Justice Department records make very clear, a law on the books does not always translate into a law that is enforced. In this particular case, for example, the latest available Justice Department data show that federal prosecutors declined to file charges against virtually all — 98.7% — of the individuals who the investigative agencies had concluded were in violation of 18 USC 242.

Apparently, no one.

A policeman, who was probably not following gun safety, was shot by his Glock. Or that’s what he’d like us to believe. He’s suing Glock for making a defective product:

A Tac-team cop who was accidentally shot in the right knee is suing the makers of the Calgary Police Service-issue Glock pistols. In a statement of claim filed in Court of Queen’s Bench, Const. Thomas Marston says his holstered service weapon discharged Dec. 6, 2002, while he got out of his police vehicle.

“Const. Marston was opening the passenger door to the vehicle … when the pistol discharged suddenly and without warning, wounding (him) in the right knee,” the lawsuit says.

“Const. Marston was not attempting to fire the pistol when it discharged and had his right hand on the vehicle’s door,” says the claim, a copy of which was obtained yesterday by the Sun.

Marston and his partner, Const. Shannon Scott, had been called to assist another police unit in a downtown alley at the time his weapon fired, it says.

The court action, which seeks damages of $150,000, alleges the gun’s manufacturer, Georgia-based Glock Inc., produced a faulty weapon.

Since the firing mechanism on the Glock requires that the trigger be pulled to pull the pin back, one of three things likely happened here:

1 – The Glock safety feature failed, this is highly unlikely.

2 – A holster problem where some part of the holster actually applied pressure to the trigger, which has happened before.

3 – The cop is lying. Unless he was using a cowboy action holster that is tied to his leg, a holstered weapon can not shoot him in the knee. Tactical holsters rest on the hip and I don’t see how a holster in that position can ever point the weapon at a knee. If the gun was holstered and it was a holster problem, I don’t see how it is possible for the guy to have been shot in the knee.

My bet’s on number three. I think the guy goofed up and is trying to save face.

I have contended before that issuing police Tasers and other probably-not-lethal devices would result in using these devices when they weren’t absolutely necessary. In Nashville, that seems to be what is happening:

A Tennessean review of police reports for the first seven people shocked with Tasers since 45 stun guns were distributed to officers on the streets of Nashville last month, showed that:

• All seven were black men between the ages of 17 and 32.

• Five were unarmed.

• Only two of the men were accused of fighting or threatening to strike officers before they were shocked.

• One man was shocked while already in handcuffs.

The Tennessean concludes that in five of seven cases the suspect was not violent. Police officials would be well advised to create a standard for use, like they do with deadly force. I am not saying that the criteria for Taser use should be the same for deadly force but that a set of guidelines would prevent abuse of these devices. Tasering a suicidal 6 year old is inexcusable.

Ah, moving! The scent of leaking gas is in the air!

The missus and I completed our first move as a couple over the weekend. As I sat around surveying the contents of our old house and calculating the enemies I’d make out of friends and relatives if I got them to help me carry all that stuff up stairs (not to mention the favors I’d owe if they helped), I decided to hire movers. It took them six hours Saturday night, so that means without them, I’d still be trying to load up the truck today.

Of course, by “completed our first move,” I mean that all the stuff is now (somewhere) in the new house, on either Levels One, Two, or Three (Note to Future Self: rancher good, tri-level bad). Now we start the laborious unpacking process. Hopefully that means throwing a bunch of crap away. We also get to undo all the crazy things previous owners did, like using a paint roller to apply several layers of paint to all wall plates and outlets, thereby sealing them tightly and securely in place to each other and to the walls.

Other than a gas leak, this was just your standard move. And I don’t want to do it again any time soon. I told someone this morning that coming back to work was like taking a break, and that’s the truth. Now I need to find some side jobs to pay for all the furniture we’ll need. Anybody need any software written? Heh…

Robert Byrd (D – KKK) wants to mandate that schools devote at least part of a day each year to teaching about the document. I think it might take more than a day. I also think members of Congress should be forced to attend that class at least weekly. A member of a school organization doesn’t agree:

“It’s the kind of intervention from the federal level that really has no place in our system of education,” said Vincent Ferrandino, executive director of the National Assn. of Elementary School Principals. “If there is concern on the part of members of Congress that the Constitution is not being taught in our schools, I think that’s an issue that ought to be raised in other venues.”

I don’t know guys. If you mandate that it is taught people might wake up and realize that the Congress violates it on at least a quarterly basis.

Fisking a EULA?

Good read over at the Carnival.

Since I’m photoblogging: Got some new gizmos for Mr. Blasty, which include a tactical sling, a universal mounting platform (or a rail in English), vertical fore-grip (to aid in spray firing my bullet hose), and an EOTech Holographic Weapons Sight. And you may have noticed I got some Frankenmags, which are the tops of AR mags welded to the bottoms of AK mags. Apparently, the 7.62X39MM doesn’t do so well in straight mags and likes curved mags.

Pretty cool.

Yup, he’s a killer.

Looks like the NRA is again pushing for a bill to protect gun makers from frivolous lawsuits:

Emboldened by the results of the month’s elections, the nation’s largest gun lobby will push again for a federal law shielding gunmakers and sellers from lawsuits (sic*).

When the new Congress convenes in January, the National Rifle Association says, it will have four more pro-gun senators. The trade group hopes that will help make the difference in passing a bill that died in the Senate in March.

“The chance of success is greater this time,” said Bob Levy, senior fellow at The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.

The idea of lawsuit immunity pits gun owners and hunters in rural areas against city dwellers often beset by violence. The NRA wants a law that would exempt manufacturers from civil lawsuits, except when they violate local, state or federal law.

While I am lukewarm on the issue, I support it for two reasons:

1 – These lawsuits are utter bullshit designed to bankrupt companies who are engaged in lawful activities.

2 – The push to pass it keeps these idiots busy. If they’re busy, then they’re not working on other asinine gun legislation.

As for why I am lukewarm on the issue, I think Robert Levy of the Cato Institute, after explaining the failure of these lawsuits, sums it up nicely:

Of course, the industry contends that costs of litigation have driven companies out of business and raised prices for firearms. Yes, that may be a problem; but unless and until Second Amendment rights are compromised, there’s no role for the U.S. Congress. After all, 31 states on their own have now banned municipal lawsuits against gun makers. Moreover, some dealers that were forced out of business for selling guns to known criminals would not have been protected by S. 1805 in any event. And if a manufacturer were to shut down, another gun maker would no doubt satisfy any unfulfilled demand. As for government lawsuits resulting in higher gun prices, the states have done far worse by imposing taxes and other regulatory burdens without a peep from Congress.

Ultimately, the message for our judges and legislators is twofold. First, courts must continue to reject bogus claims instigated by anti-gun zealots seeking to circumvent state legislatures. Second, Congress should keep its nose out of state tort law and reaffirm that our national government is one of enumerated, delegated and, therefore, limited powers.

* When did gunmakers become a word?

The MMM/Brady Campaign are calling the NRA to Tell the Truth about Military-Style Assault Weapons. I’m not the NRA but the truth is that no new Military-Style Assault Weapons have been available to citizens since 1986. The assault weapons ban does not address Military-Style Assault Weapons but banned features that rifles that looked like Military-Style Assault Weapons could have. And some more truth:

The SKS rifle apparently used by the hunter to kill six other hunters in Wisconsin wasn’t banned under the Federal assault weapons ban that expired September 13, but it should be banned for civilian use. Designed for use in war, even the gun industry admitted yesterday that it’s not intended for hunting.

Apparently, apparently means we didn’t bother to check. The rifle used by Vang was listed in the police report as a Saiga SKS 7.62×39 caliber, serial number HO-3104079. Saiga does not import SKS and the rifle used was likely a Saiga 7.62, one of which can be seen here. Reader Jay pointed out that if you scroll down to the last picture here, you can clearly see that the Saiga’s serial number starts with HO, the same prefix on the rifle used by Vang.

The MMM states that such a weapon is inappropriate for hunting. Obviously, it is an effective hunting rifle or so many people wouldn’t be using them. Additionally, their relatively low price makes them affordable to hunters on a budget.

So, SayUncle calls on the MMM/Brady Campaign to tell the truth about anything.

TIM ACKARMAN:

Put down the gun control and slowly back away. This one really perplexes liberals. Polls show that the majority favors assault weapons bans and other “reasonable” gun control, yet your party gets hammered on this issue at the voting booth. Let me explain.

There is a small but highly vocal element in your ranks that would like to see all guns banned. Red state guys (and plenty of gals) want none of it.

Most of us could care less about owning assault weapons. However, we don’t believe banning them will significantly impact crime. And we worry about what guns they’ll come after next. We fight for AK-47s today so we won’t have to battle for grandpa’s Model 12 (it’s a classic shotgun) tomorrow.

While there may be roughly equal numbers of gun control advocates and opponents, its foes are much more likely to be one-issue voters. So until you marginalize the extremists on your side, those on the other will continue to clobber you.

Yup. I am what most would call an extremist on gun rights. However, my position on the issue is actually based on the Constitution, case law, and lack of evidence that gun control affects crime. The anti-gun folks must constantly lie or mislead to make their point, which is what extremists tend to do. Good to see someone call them on it.