The Smallest Minority

Almost garateed that she and her hubby voted for Hussein. The term "tool" really does work sometimes. Or is it "fool"?

Seems like every state in the Union is experiencing this. Can that many people be "paranoid gun nuts?"

emdfl: Good! Then maybe if we don't insult her and her family, we can count on her to call her congresscritters when the time comes.

perlhaqr:

Unlikely.

After all, she's got hers now.

Those other people are probably nutcases and need to be stopped from having guns.

I got my daughter into a junior club shooting 4 position and my wife had to take while I was working those nights. The instructors got her to try it and now she is shooting regularly and working her way up the ranks. She recently did a ladies day at the range and got to shoot .22 pistol, which she loved and wants to do more. This would be her first gun also and I can tell you that she did not vote obama. Don't be so quick to assume the worse. Many people are waking up and reacting to previous conversations about the subject.
As a side note my wife took a friend of hers to woman's day who happen to be 92 and never shot anything before and had a ball.

"Almost garateed that she and her hubby voted for Hussein"

Why? If you looked at the county election results map, Mukwonago was in the one red spot. And there were a LOT of McCain signs around here. Heh, there still are, interspersed with Palin 2012 signs.

Maybe there was more in the linked article, but the link is broken.

Just so they don't lay down when the right is in jeopardy! We need to be heard now (for at least the next four years) more than ever. First timers included.!

Great attitude U-J. That's definitely the way to make the allies we'll need to combat the upcoming AWB.

Excellent! She bought a gun because it is her RIGHT.

What better reason could one have?

perlhaqr:

I think you misunderstand me greatly.

I'm relating to her what so many Zumbos and Fudds say.
Once they've got (what they think will be all they need) for guns, then it's OK to shut down the gun sales to everybody else.
Sadly, I have one in my immeditate family. "They'll never outlaw MY guns".
A gun *owner* doesn't mean they're in any way a gun rights supporter.

Now, find someone who wants to buy a gun....

Good to see another upstanding citizen come to the dark side. We have cookies!

Every time somebody wakes up, Bryan Miller gets another gray hair.

Hrm. I see where you were coming from now.

I guess we need to work to change that, then, and make more gun owners into gun rights supporters.

I'm not a gun owner, but I *am* a gun rights supporter.

There was an exchange between juris and poster named dan recently on my blog. It really sums up how I feel about the gun issue.

Juris asked, "I'll just bet you support an assault weapons ban, don't you?"

To which Dan replied "That strikes me as one of those loaded (forgive me) questions designed to intimidate someone into silence. Only some half-crazed pacifist/hippy/communist/anti-American/atheist/sub-human traitor would support an assault rifle ban. Is that about right? Somehow there's fundamentally something wrong with someone who thinks that maybe there isn't really a place in our world for that kind of privately owned firepower?

Why would anyone NEED an assault rifle? If it's to use against our government in an armed uprising, that's either mutiny or treason, maybe both. If it's for shooting up a schoolyard, well we all should know how wrong that is. If it's for hunting, or home defense, I'm not sure that's the best choice for the task. If it's for sport or target shooting, that's fine. I don't know enough about the subject to form an opinion. If it's for a false sense of security or virility, that's just sad."

Which is how I feel about these folks from Wisconsin. Sad. President Elect Obama is not going to take away people's right to bear arms. Please re-read the previous sentence again and calm the fuck down.

And if you can actually get calm, ask yourself this question...why would a state like Wisconsin (where I grew up btw and has gun lovers a plenty) elect, overwhelmingly three times, a stinkin' liberal like Russ Feingold?

Careful, now, it's an answer that does have some grey and I don't want anyone to get hurt. I am a believer in safety above all else:)

Back to posting random blurbs without dealing with the ramifications of the ones you already posted, Mark?

"If it's for sport or target shooting, that's fine. I don't know enough about the subject to form an opinion. If it's for a false sense of security or virility, that's just sad."

Can't be bothered to learn about it but managed an opinion anyway. Those armchair psychological evaluations are cute, too.

"If it's to use against our government in an armed uprising, that's either mutiny or treason, maybe both"

Apparently this guy missed U.S. History 101. Maybe World History.

...maybe an education altogether...

"Obama is not going to take away people's right to bear arm"

Now... do you KNOW this? Do you have evidence?
Because we KNOW from his voting record that he WANTS to, or at least he has, at every opportunity that has arisen, voted as if he wants to.

What statements go contradictory to that? Oh, yes, his "I won't take them away, but even if I wanted to I couldn't statement." Which came only a few months after that whole bitter-gun-clinging bit.

More examples of your inability to parse basic information, Mark.

Also, it doesn't matter if someone *NEEDS* something. It's not YOUR godamn decision to make.

President Elect Obama is not going to take away people's right to bear arms.

By himself? No. With the help of the Pelosi/McCarthy-wing of the Congressional Dems? Maybe. At least as far as EVIL-SCARY-ASSAULT-WEAPONS are concerned. Never mind the mind-numbingly stupid characterization of some semi-auto rifles.

My wife and three of her friends are all in their fifties and had never before fired, or even touched, a gun. They all went to the three day "Babes With Bullets" firearm training class in Phoenix in October, have all purchased handguns and joined the NRA. Hell immediately froze over.

Why would anyone NEED an assault rifle?
As Michael Marks of the Fifty Caliber Institute said, "somebody’s idea of what I need isn’t the issue – America is about freedom. I can build a bigger house than I need, seeks thrills from skydiving to snowboarding that I don’t need, own a stereo so loud that it hurts my ears if I choose to. The moment we allow someone to villify anything on the basis of “more than we need” is the moment that we set into motion a precedent that could touch anything in our lives. The restriction of personal freedom of any sort is a sober and weighty decision that deserves to be made upon real facts, not hype."

If it's for hunting, or home defense, I'm not sure that's the best choice for the task.
Who the fuck died and made you Supreme Arbiter of Best Home Defense And Hunting Tools?

"Obama is not going to take away people's right to bear arm"

Now... do you KNOW this? Do you have evidence?
No he doesn't have evidence. He just expects us to take him and our newly elected Dear Leader at their word, their respective histories be damned.

I was one of those responsible for gun sales going up in Wisconsin.

I've already got plenty of toys, mind you, but I kept reading about how gun stores were all sold out of EBRs and that the backorder list would take months to fulfill (i.e. AFTER the new AWB is signed into law), yada yada yada. So one evening I stopped by the local Dunhams Sporting Goods store to see if they had any more of those Yugo AK-47s with the fold-under stock, and wouldn't you know it they had one left. Now they have zero. At least until they get more in, which I'm told should be shortly after thanksgiving.

My RRA NM A4 so outclasses that AK they shouldn't be allowed to reside in the same gun safe. But there you go. Would have never got an AK, but I remember the prices of pre-ban Colt AR-15s after the ban became law.

Probably should have spent the money on ammo instead.

"I am a believer in safety above all else" - Markadelphia

This is the most telling of all. You can have security or liberty but not both and you have made it clear where you stand. You are not what America is about. Your patriotism is a joke.

You are more in line with the British who in their attempt at security have banned about everything including potentially kitchen utensils and have big brother cameras going up as fast as they can buy them. You are one of the enablers of Orwell's Big Brother in 1984. Aren't you proud?

BTW Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have a lot of gun lovers but they are not friends of the 2nd amendment for the most part. They love to hunt but that love is narrow in scope (no pun intended). As soon as hunting rifles are safe, they are fine with any kind of ban, restriction, or limit. Selfish, ignorant, and short sighted just like most democrats.

"If it's to use against our government in an armed uprising, that's either mutiny or treason, maybe both."

Ah, yes. "Traitors." People like Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, Ben Franklin, John Adams, folks like that. Traitors, every one.
Thank you for clarifying your position on that, Mark.

I have yet to hear any evidence to suggest a warrant was ever properly served on Randy Weaver. But ya know, his son is STILL DEAD.

I have yet to hear any evidence to suggest that a warrant was properly served on the Branch Davidians in Waco. Granted, they appear to have been nut cases. But unless you support nuking San Francisco, I think you'll have trouble defending the idea that mere nuttiness is a capital offense.

While Elian Gonzalez' relatives were dealing with the custody battle *properly and according to US law*, Janet Reno decided that didn't matter and ordered a SWAT team to make a military-style assault on their home. Had the Gonzalez family defended themselves against an attack that made a mockery of EVERYTHING they had been told in a court of law, would that have made them guilty of "either mutiny or treason, maybe both"?

Mark, I find it difficult to believe you have not heard of those cases, to name just three. If I assume you have, your attitude that citizens should not be allowed to defend themselves against government violence suggests that you are not only anti-gun, you are also against government accountability.
I would like to believe better of you than that Mark, I really would. But you are making it awfully difficult.

Mark:

Don't forget, you're a proven liar on this site. So trusting you and your promises is Right Out.

Why would anyone NEED an assault rifle?

Assault rifles have been restricted to the National Firearms Registry since 1934, Mark. Only one has ever been used in a crime, and that was by a police officer.

If it's for hunting, or home defense, I'm not sure that's the best choice for the task.

How many times do we have to tell you you that you don't know what you're talking about, don't bother to find out, and as a result, your "conclusions" are as effective as Biden's speeches are original.

I don't give a rat's ass what you think is the "best choice".

Want to talk shades of grey? There's no one answer for a home defense gun. It depends on your budget, on your training, on your location, on your situation. Since luckily, my budget allows for it, I have pistols, shotguns and "Assault Weapons" as part of it.

My SAR-1, which to you would look like an AK-47? It's a great deer rifle. I use it almost yearly. The SKS, firing the same round is an incredibly popular inexpensive deer rifle for those not rich enough to support Obama.

The .30-30 Winchester, ballistically identical to the SKS and AK 7.62x39mm, was the first commercially available smokeless cartridge, and in that "high firepower" lever-action style and has accounted for more deer than any other rounds.

Best choice? What would you know of any choices?

If it's for sport or target shooting, that's fine. I don't know enough about the subject to form an opinion.

You don't know enough about home defense, either. But it didn't stop you there from letting your ignorance guide you.
Or, in actuality, politics, economics, psychology, history... I guess it's shocking you actually admitted for once that you didn't have a clue. (But notice you still made a judgement.)

President Elect Obama is not going to take away people's right to bear arms.

Despite his words disagreeing with you.

Despite his partisans already lining up to do exactly that.

Mark, this is stupid and dishonest even for you.

You hope he won't, because you've been telling us, against all logic and evidence that he won't.

But Hope won't Change you.

Please re-read the previous sentence again and calm the fuck down.

When an honest person can provide me some reasonable evidence, not hyper-partisan tripe, I might "calm down".

But Mark, when you pronounce something, your reputation for blind hyper-partisanship, blatant dishonesty, and illogical conclusions means that I and others are going to automatically believe the opposite of what you're saying.

When it's something that we've already got evidence of, it's on his own goddamned website, Mark. Change.gov. The day after the election. How Fucking Stupid can You Get? To tell us he's not saying what his own website is saying? You've never once dealt with his Joyce Foundation trusteeship. Why is that? He's the one who started the plan to buy legal journals to backdoor legal opinions to strip the Second Amendment of meaning.

We know this. So do apparently the people nationwide. Everybody, it seems, but one teacher in Minnesota...

Same Old Shit, Different Day, right, U-J?

DJ:

Yup.

Lies, Dishonesty, Unseeing Support, and 'DON'T LOOK AT THAT VIDEOTAPE!'

"Because we KNOW from his voting record that he WANTS to, or at least he has, at every opportunity that has arisen"

Incorrect. He favored the Vitter amendment and the right for certain people to conceal and carry in Illinois. It was not every time and he has stated repeatedly that he supports the right of people in this country to bear arms and sensible gun laws. So it was not "every" time.

"Don't forget, you're a proven liar on this site."

Thank you, Joan Collins.

"Same Old Shit, Different Day, right, U-J?"

Actually, take a look in the mirror on this one. Does it ever occur to you that maybe the spike in gun ownership, due to an Obama presidency, is a tad paranoid?

Was the spike in gun ownership due to the Clinton presidency paranoid? People make decisions based on experience. Past experience has positively shown Democrat leadership seeks to deny citizens rights to arms. The new administration has clearly stated it wants to do the same, only this time with greater vigor. Why is it so hard for you to understand why people are alarmed?

Come to think of it, why is it that the people who are always preaching "tolerance" are the same liberals who are so intolerant of an American culture? 300+ Million in this country with approx 13,000 homicides/accidents a year related to firearms. Meanwhile a whole group of people (80+ Million) who legally and lawfully exercise their rights are continually persecuted for the actions of a very small group of criminals. It's so stupid I can't wrap my mind around it.

So it was not "every" time.

We've already shown you that those examples are not by any means a flat out enunciation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Regardless of that refutation and your inability to learn from it, you refuse to address his time on Joyce, his hundreds of other votes, his actions that speak otherwise, and
THE WORDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON HIS WEBSITE
Yes, Mark, even aside from your direct and obvious lies that is a dishonest analysis. One that you know is dishonest (we've told you so before). To repeat it is deliberate.

Does it ever occur to you that maybe the spike in gun ownership, due to an Obama presidency, is a tad paranoid?

No.

It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you, Mark.

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information,

A lie, as it doesn't affect law enforcement in the slightest. It affects non-law enforcement, and people like Bloomberg who want to make political searches

and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals.

Common sense, huh? Notice what comes right after that...

They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.

There is no "gun show loophole" There is just private sales. Mark, you dipshit, right there they're going to outlaw private sales and transfers. You can't sell to a friend. I can't sell to Kevin. My dad can't leave me guns in his will. That's the "loophole". Childproof is impossible. It's another stalking horse for some sort of locking mechanism - which you'll note that the police will be exempted from. (Nevermind the numbers of children killed with their parent's issued duty weapon)

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Guess what's flying off the shelves right now? The most-popular single rifle in the US. The most used in high power target shooting. The AR-15. Because it will be outlawed if Obama gets his way, you dishonest, ignorant, blathering HACK.

That's from his website. How dare you try and snit with a couple of minor procedural votes, for a man who's said he wants to ban concealed carry nationwide, and voted for an amendment along with almost every other member of the senate> (Some bravery! Hope! Change!

There's your candidate. That's why you can't find an AR. That's why several million were sold in the last 2 weeks.

Maybe you'd better stop sneering at paranoia and start studying how they came to their conclusions. You could learn a lot about observation, hypothesis, and theory. (We already know you don't have any of those skills now.)

CAShane:

Come to think of it, why is it that the people who are always preaching "tolerance" are the same liberals who are so intolerant of an American culture?

That's the curse of liberalism. Only the "right" things are to be "tolerated". And anybody you disagree with is to be utterly destroyed.

300+ Million in this country with approx 13,000 homicides/accidents a year related to firearms.

And if you remove just one demographics' murders... this drops to a rate under almost any other country. Just 1 demographic. The one we're not allowed to mention.

Meanwhile a whole group of people (80+ Million) who legally and lawfully exercise their rights are continually persecuted for the actions of a very small group of criminals. It's so stupid I can't wrap my mind around it.

Because you're not understanding the intent.

We're not being persecuted for the acts of criminals, that's the cover story. Criminal behavior is irrelevant to the gun control agenda.

Rifles, nationwide, are used in less than 2% of all crime (not just murders. All gun related crime. Rifles. Of any sort. Of which semiautos are a subset.
What's the #1 issue for Obama? Outlawing all semi-auto rifles. He's said in the past all pistols should be outlawed, as well.
Completely divorced from any reason or rationale with "Crime" or "criminals".

No, the control is the operative and important word with "gun control". As long as you have the ability to demand to make your own destiny, then you'll get in the way of the Plans of Those Who Should Decide.

Look at Mark, he thinks he should be one to tell us how to live our life. It frustrates him that right now, he doesn't have that ability.

Look at the rest of the left-wing part of the Democrats. They want to tell you how it's best for you to live. What you should drive (or shouldn't drive, you should take mass transit). What you should spend the money they'll let you have 'back' on. Where you should live. What you should....

That's what has to stop. Crime doesn't matter. In fact, Crime helps them, because you'll be scared. You'll look to them for help, for advice, for instruction.

Look to England if you doubt. Has crime affected any of the government's changes? Government concerns itself first and foremost with it's own power. Only later does it worry about the people who make up its base. Concern for any Individual... is only important if they're part of the government or can assist it's goals and power-retention in some way.

"the right for certain people to conceal and carry in Illinois. "

Why don't you tell us who those "certain people" were Mark?

Why don't you tell us about his votes and statements about other "certain people" on CCW? You know, like his vote against a bill allowing people w/ OOPs to obtain CCW permits? Or his statement on CCW in general"

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

What you're doing is being disingenuous.

Thirdpower:
What you're doing is being disingenuous.
Mark's well beyond "disingenuous". He's got no problem with blatant displays of dishonesty. He knows better about those claims - they were refuted the first, second, and third times he made 'em.

But that's a good point I didn't touch on. Mark, I'm sure when Obama's through, that "certain people" will be able to have guns, and "certain people" will be able to carry them.

After all, the "right people" need to be protected.

Mark - You are an idiot, and as stated before, a liar.

[i]Actually, take a look in the mirror on this one. Does it ever occur to you that maybe the spike in gun ownership, due to an Obama presidency, is a tad paranoid [/i}

Let's see Mark. his voting record, and HIS OWN DAMN WEBSITE state he wants to PERMANENTLY BAN "Assault Weapons." Therefore buying those weapons he says he's going to ban is a perfectly logical and prudent course of action. There's nothing paranoid about it.

>>Somehow there's fundamentally something wrong with someone who thinks that maybe there isn't really a place in our world for that kind of privately owned firepower?

Well, yes.

There *is* in fact something fundamentally wrong with someone who thinks that the fundamental root of power does not belong in the hands of the people.

If it is not privately held, then it is held in common by some (presumably governmental) collective.

Honest students of history know that governmental magnitude collectives with a monopoly on arms have a piss poor record or wielding it responsibly.


If we multiply the average US murder rate of 15k/year * 100, we wind up in the ballpark of 1,500,000 murders over the course of our bloodiest one hundred years ever.

The Khymer Rouge's 1975 genocide killed over 2 million people, and yet this was one of the 20th century's smaller and less noteworthy genocide.

When you total up the butchers bill, it comes out to about 262 MILLION people killed by their own governments.

(http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM)

Arms in private hands cannot, and will not ever even vaguely approach those numbers. Such megadeath is possible ONLY when enabled by collective organizations on the magnitude of a government, and ONLY when the people's will or means of effectively resisting is destroyed.

Resistance, in this case, does not refer to strongly worded letters to your government.

It refers to having the means and will to cut the bastards down when they stand in your door, if only to extract the full price when your personal chances of survival and escape are nil.

Don't think it can't happen. I personally know people who were dragged off to camps in the middle of the night. They tell their tales, for their friends who cannot.


So YES, DAMNIT.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the belief that there's no room in the world for personal fighting arms.

It's not just an abstract theory. It is a fundamental dynamic of power, and it is one of the bedrocks upon which our theory of free people is based: government cannot be trusted, and SHALL NOT have a monopoly of arms.


To believe the opposite is the ultimate in muddled, confused and broken thought.

"To believe the opposite is the ultimate in muddled, confused and broken thought."

But such (ahem) thought is his specialty, isn't it?

"Past experience has positively shown Democrat leadership seeks to deny citizens rights to arms."

And yet all of the gun owners that are liberal that I know don't think any of this crap is true. In fact, every liberal I know owns a gun of some sort. My best friend in Wisconsin owns a frikkin' arsenal, loves Obama, and has not a worry in the world. I guess he's an "idiot" right?

"Therefore buying those weapons he says he's going to ban is a perfectly logical and prudent course of action. There's nothing paranoid about it."

But assault weapons aren't the only things being purchased. Hand guns are being bought in large numbers. Do you honestly think he is going to ban those? After he voted in favor of the Vitter Amendment?

"There is something fundamentally wrong with the belief that there's no room in the world for personal fighting arms."

I agree. But your definition of firearms is much different then mine. There are a whole group of weapons that will never be banned by anyone and offer more than adequate home protection. I think all of these weapons should never be banned. We then get into another area of weapons...the grey area...and that's where the problems begin. In other words, where is the line? OK, so maybe assault weapons are OK. Alright, what about a grenade launcher? Should RPGs be allowed to be purchased? Is there any sort of weapon that should not be allowed to be owned by ordinary citizens?

Aaaand now we get to Mark "logic".

And yet all of the gun owners that are liberal that I know don't think any of this crap is true.

That might be why they're liberal. We'll see how liberal they are in 3 years.

In fact, every liberal I know owns a gun of some sort. My best friend in Wisconsin owns a frikkin' arsenal, loves Obama, and has not a worry in the world. I guess he's an "idiot" right?

Looks that way. Mark, there are always people willing to sell out OTHER people. Jim Zumbo was willing to sell out "terrorist rifles" without a care. Your friend, does he have the ability to carry his gun with him? Does he think his guns are about to be outlawed?

There are lots of people who refuse to see what's in front of their face. You're Exhibit A for pete's sake.
I've posted to you, and explained, what Obama's own fucking web site says. And you just.. ignored it in favor of your supposed other people's anonymous comments, and trite sound bite that's been proven to mean nothing.
His vote on the "Vitter Amendment" means almost NOTHING. What was the Vitter amendment? Let's see how you "define" it.
And it's the only thing you can point to. So you hold it up as a talisman, a trump, declaring See! See! It is so!
And it's all you can do. Wave Vitter! Vitter! See! See! He didn't vote this one time to ban guns (which Vitter didn't have anything to do with)

Hand guns are being bought in large numbers. Do you honestly think he is going to ban those? After he voted in favor of the Vitter Amendment?

Yes. He's publicly said that handguns should be severely restricted. He's talking about bringing back neutered magazines for them. Vitter means nothing here. Nothing. Not a single goddamned thing.

Does it? What does Vitter have to do with the "AWB" that he promises to pass? Which also outlawed pistols and handguns?

But your definition of firearms is much different then mine.

Only because you decide to make up your own definitions for them. (As you do capitalism, economics, history, lies, facts, socialism, theory, hypothesis, cornerstone...)

There are a whole group of weapons that will never be banned by anyone and offer more than adequate home protection.

Oh! They do! Really? Well, why didn't we just think to put you in charge in the first place? Since you know what's adequate and all!

I think all of these weapons should never be banned.

Awfully nice of you, old chap. Problem is, you don't know what you're talking about, and what if they are banned? What are you going to do about it?

Alright, what about a grenade launcher? Should RPGs be allowed to be purchased?

Dealt with under current law. I can say with a VERY high level of certainty that Kevin, geek, thirdpower can state the legality of each of those.

Can you? (I won't hold my breath.)

More attempts from you to deceive and distract.

I've given you Obama's own words. Deal with them. Deal with his "novel" plan to judicially nullify the Second Amendment by buying Law Journals. Vitter means nothing, either then, or now. At least change your damn talisman. Vitter is meaningless, unless you can prove otherwise.

Yet again, bringing up new shit when you won't address old shit, right, teacher?

Have a look at this, liar boy. It's a .pdf of a Google cache of a web site page that used to be available on the Obama transition web site. In particular, note its date: November 7, 2008, just after the election.

Turn to page 4, where you'll find this:

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police owcers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefelds and not on our streets."

It's a peek at what he's thinking, isn't it? Given that it's been removed from the transition web site, it's also a peek at what he doesn't want you to be aware he's thinking, isn't it?

It's about credibility, liar boy, remember? You still have none. You have to earn it to have it, and you don't know how.

OK, so maybe assault weapons are OK. Alright, what about a grenade launcher?

Yes. Next question.

Should RPGs be allowed to be purchased?

Yes. Also anti-tank guided missiles, anti-aircraft artillery and missiles, field artillery, armored personnel carriers, main battle tanks, and jet fighters.

The abovelisted are all equivalent to horse artillery of the type privately owned by men like John Hancock in April 1775 (perhaps the date is familiar to you). If you can feed it, maintain it, and store it, good on you. If you hurt somebody with it that warn't paying extra for the privilege, well, we already have laws agin' that.

Next question.

Is there any sort of weapon that should not be allowed to be owned by ordinary citizens?

The usual answer is NBC weapons, due to their indiscriminate nature. Not that governments have proven terribly responsible either; I doubt NBCs in the hands of law-abiding private citizens would be any more a danger. Governments might prove slightly better at keeping them out of criminal hands (maybe I should say other criminal hands)...but considering A.Q. Khan worked in his official government capacity, I would not bet a lot of money on it. I personally don't want any; unlike the others I mentioned, what the heck fun would they be?

But fun is a byproduct, not the purpose (so peddle sporting purpose elsewhere). Free law-abiding men should be able to own all these without let or hindrance other than their own resources, for the best reason in the world: that the king -- whether the motto of his house "Vote Freedom First" or "Yes, We Can" -- may know that there are places his writ does not run.

III

DJ:

It's back, look at my post above.

They just spiffed it up, moved some stuff around. the file name on the URL changed.

But it's all right there. Now. as it was from late Nov 5th on, with a brief hiatus for some stuff to get edited out.

Notably, nothing having to do with guns.

Yup, so it is, U-J. I clicked your link but didn't recognize it when I saw it. Mea culpa.

Look at what Obama says about guns, as I quoted above. Note that what he practices is The Art of the Adjective, by which he qualifies any significant noun with an adjective that he can later define however he wants to without contradicting himself.

For example, he says police officers need "tools". What kind of tools, you ask? The tools "they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade." Who says "they need" what tools Obama would give them later? Obama would. Later.

Another example, indeed a perfect one: "Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals." What kind of measures are "commonsense" measures, you ask? They are whatever the hell Obama says they are. Later.

This is what you get when you vote for a mirage.

Actually, after reading this...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1117/p03s01-uspo.html

...an assault rifle might not be enough. Unfortunately, a grenade launcher might be the only thing they understand :)

...so... your approach to dealing with the comments and refutations of your bullshit is to change subjects, Mark?

Explain the relevancy.

Try this instead. The money quote:

"The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.

"In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.

"Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.

"Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

"The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible.

"Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event.

"They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed."

Nope. Can't be. Bad guys obey gun laws.

Hat tip to SayUncle.

"...so... your approach to dealing with the comments and refutations of your bullshit is to change subjects, Mark?"

Adam, this is his Standard Response #4, otherwise known as the "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response.

>>I agree.

No, you really don't.

>>But your definition of firearms is much different then mine.

I knew there was a "but" in there.

My definition of arms is simple and consistent with the practical, legal, moral and historical purpose of RKBA.

The definition is "militarily credible arms", not "farm and sport implements".

Militarily credible arms must meet a rock bottom minimum set of qualifications: semi-auto action (manual bolt/pump/lever actions having been proven inadequate since, oh, 1941ish) common military caliber (logistics, uniformity and adequate performance) be fed by a large capacity magazine (because you're more likely to die when reloading...and also serves defensive fire more than it serves offensive fire) be of moderate cost, (because, frankly, fighting rifles need to be common as weeds, and not badges of lordly privilege )and be implemented in a simple, tough and reliable design proven to be equal to the rigors of the field.

It should not be surprising that arms of military lineage meet the qualities necessary to be militarily credible arms: they did not acquire their attributes by accident.


That's the rock bottom line.


The man you advocated for POTUS disagrees: he advocated banning "all forms" of semi-automatic, not just the scary ones that have military pedigrees, which includes many of my farming and sporting implements that wouldn't qualify for other reasons.

(http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm ...apparently they missed chucking this one down the memory hole)

Restricted to revolvers, pump, lever and bolt actions, this would set the citizen back about 100 years, and shove them well below the threshold of "military credibility".

The government that demands 100 years of technology advantage over its citizens is rightly to be feared, and not to be trusted.

That's this link.

Fixed it for you.

Not that it's perfectly relevant at the moment, mind you, but here is an example of fundamental dishonesty that ought to bring on the RCOB. Of course it's Al Franken. Did you have to ask?

re: Mark's linked article:

Source: Christian Science Monitor

I'm a christian who frequently argues that science and christianity are fully compatible, but what the "Christian Scientists" believe is neither christianity or science.

Strike one

"according to the Southern Poverty Law Center"

Strike two

No balancing quotes from someone to the right of the extreme left.

Strike three

"After sparking conflict and showdowns in the 1990s – think Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing – white supremacist and nationalist groups"

You mean the attempt to frame Mr. Weaver which resulted in the unjustified killing of his wife and son, the siege and murder of an admittedly wacky fringe group who wasn't doing anything illegal and an admittedly wrong response to those injustices? The first two were "sparked" by the FBI and BATFE and the third was "justified" by pointing to the crimes committed by the BATFE.

Strike four

Swallowing the racial propaganda from the Southern Poverty Law Center lock, stock and barrel and tarring every single person concerned about Obama's policies as a racist white supremacist?

Strike five

Heck, it's so freakin' blatant that it's strikes 6 through 12 too.

Yer' out! Oh wait, that's a perfect bowling score!

C'mon Mark, even you should recognize that an article which pretends that anyone concerned about Obama is a racist is not a valid look at all the facts. Yes, there are white supremacists who oppose Obama, but I would be completely shocked if they exceed 2% of those concerned about Obama, and it's likely be somewhere south of 1%. That's trying to cite the exceptions and pretending that they define "normal." It's pure demonizing and dehumanizing propaganda full of factual errors. In other words, it's rat poison for the mind. (And it sounds suspiciously like prewar Nazi propaganda.)

DJ,

I don't think you could call Franken dishonest for that displayed ballot. Personally, I can't tell if the person meant to fill it in and was just sloppy, or if they goofed and tried to undo their mistake. Seeing how they filled in the rest of the ballot would help a lot in determining which way it falls. Short of that, I would probably just toss it for failing to conform to posted directions.

Furthermore, that ballot is the only one being challenged in that precinct according to the article.

I say don't waste energy and ammo on this instance. We have far move obvious and threatening targets to deal with.

Geekwitha.45:

"There is something fundamentally wrong with the belief that there's no room in the world for personal fighting arms.

It's not just an abstract theory. It is a fundamental dynamic of power, and it is one of the bedrocks upon which our theory of free people is based: government cannot be trusted, and SHALL NOT have a monopoly of arms."

Beautiful. Just beautiful. I tip my hat to you sir.

"OK, so maybe assault weapons are OK. Alright, what about a grenade launcher?

Yes. Next question."

To put this in real-world terms for Mark's sake....

Mark, I live on the Gulf Coast of the US. If my finances allowed it, I could (and probably would) buy a sailboat capable of extended sailing over the horizon from land. It would not be out of the question for me to sail to the Caribbean, Yucatan, or even South America.
If you can think of any reason why I should not be allowed to do so, please let me know.

You may not realize it, but the Gulf of Mexico has a piracy problem nearly as bad as the Horn of Africa. The major difference is that our pirates prey on small craft to use in the drug trade. It is kept well down by the efforts of the US Navy and the US Coast Guard, but it is an ongoing struggle. And the farther south you go, the less the Navy is there to protect you. At BEST, even in US territorial waters, it's a BIG body of water, and they can't be everywhere.
So yeah, yer goddam right I want to be able to buy a grenade launcher or an RPG at the very LEAST. If I'm somewhere down near Martinique and the bad guys want to take my boat and throw me over the side with a bullet to the brain, I want to make sure they are sorry they tried it.
If you can think of any reason why I should not be allowed to do so, please let me know.

Since the piracy problem is a consequence of the drug trade and deals with small craft, there is at least some possibility of being checked out by the Coast Guard or the Navy while sailing any distance in the Gulf of Mexico. And that's fine, I have no problem with their enforcement efforts. While I may disagree with the rules, I cannot fault the Coast Guard for doing its job. Nonetheless, the Gulf of Mexico is international waters, and if I'm sailing from, say, Grand Bahama to Panama, who I am and what I'm doing is none of the US government's damn business. If I am not in US waters, and obviously not headed toward US waters, they can damn well butt out.
Of course, I have no problem with being called over the radio and asked about registry, home port, origin and destination, etc. But if they are going to board and search, I expect them to show proper authority for doing so, as well as legitimate cause. If they cannot show both, what they are doing is not law enforcement, it is despotism, making them no different from the pirates they hunt. As a citizen of an allegedly free country, I consider it not only my right but my positive DUTY to resist despotism from government, *particularly my own*. And yes, there is the chance I'd end up being sunk by my own shipmates because I fired on them with a grenade launcher.
When I joined the Navy long ago, I took an oath to defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I pledged my life to that end.
When I was discharged, I don't remember anything that said that oath was no longer valid.
It's a duty thing. It's an honor thing. If you don't understand don't feel too bad. Many don't. Nonetheless, I consider myself still pledged to the defense of my country, up to and including my life, from anyone who threatens her, even my own shipmates, until the day I die.
If you can think of any reason why I should not be allowed to do so, please let me know.

"Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals."

Impossible. Much more strict measures haven't prevented criminals from getting guns in Canada and the UK, and have increasingly infringed on the rights of gun owners.

And I find it rich that the same group of people who think it's beneficial to "educate" children about safe sexual practices takes an abstinence-only approach to guns.

"Personally, I can't tell if the person meant to fill it in and was just sloppy, or if they goofed and tried to undo their mistake."

Horse hockey.

We don't count the voter's "intent", we count the voter's "vote". We determine the voter's vote by his mark on his ballot. In this case, it's a perfectly readable mark and there is no doubt which candidate the mark indicates a vote for.

Now, is it perfectly readable by a machine? Possibly not, but it doesn't have to be. The test is not "is it machine readable", the test is "is it a mark on a ballot by a candidate's name", and it is. Making it machine readable makes it faster to count, but not more legitimate.

I didn't design the machine that counts the votes, but if I did, it would read that as a perfectly valid mark.

Now, why is it an issue in this case? Because very few votes separate the two candidates, and Al Franken is apparently more interested in winning than in the legitimacy of votes for the other guy.

"I say don't waste energy and ammo on this instance. We have far move obvious and threatening targets to deal with."

That depends on how low your thresholds of amusement and tolerance are. I think it's funny as hell, and I hope Al Franken gets hit by a beer truck. Your mileage may vary.

"I hope Al Franken gets hit by a beer truck."

I disagree. I would rather see him drown in a vat of pig slop.

"I didn't design the machine that counts the votes, but if I did, it would read that as a perfectly valid mark."

Well programming is my day job, so let me walk you through how a programmer thinks in developing a system like this.

First of all, we have the basic definition of what constitutes a vote. A fully filled in circle is a vote. An empty circle is not a vote.

So the first thing a programmer would have to do is simply narrow the area being looked at. Marks outside the circle are meaningless, so they should be ignored.

Next, the case of a completely empty circle and a fully filled in circle is easy. They count for their purpose.

Now it starts getting harder. We're dealing with humans working with paper. You need to assume that people will make marks other than fully filled in circles. For example, someone drops a pen or is careless and a slight mark is made in a circle. Or they're sloppy and a circle is only partially filled in, leaving the center white or slivers of white showing through. Or maybe something the person filling out the ballot leaves a gray or colored mark in a circle.

In this case, the programmer needs to check with the election officials for guidelines on what percentage of a circle being filled in counts as a vote. It would probably be safe to assume that less than 20% is certainly a random mark while greater than 80% is easily recognizable as a vote. But what about the point in between these two? Maybe the programmer could simply pick 50% filled as the tipping point for vote/no vote. Or maybe the election officials will tell the programmer to bias the percentages one way or the other, such as 60/40. Or maybe even create a "no man's land" were percentages between 40% and 60% filled get flagged as needing human review or kicked out by the scanner as rejected, requiring the voter to fill in a new sheet.

I hope this gives you a good feel for how programmers have to think about these things. While a programmer can give the decision makers feedback on what these issues are and possible options, the final decision is ultimately in the hands of election officials and the legislators who define exactly what is, and is not a vote.

A guy named Rich Cook said it best:

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning."

Just eyeballing that ballot again with a percentage based view, it looks like the circle itself is slightly less than 50% filled, say roughly 35-40 percent. IMHO, the machine should have kicked it out as void and told the voter to fill out a fresh ballot.

"I disagree. I would rather see him drown in a vat of pig slop."

Well, have a heart, guy. I killed a feral sow yesterday, field dressed it, and hauled it to a meat shop. I just want him gone, I don't want to torture him, and mucking about with pigs when you don't want to, well, that's over the line, methinks.

"Well programming is my day job, so let me walk you through how a programmer thinks in developing a system like this."

I could teach you, Ed. I designed instrumentation systems with embedded computers and optical (and other) sensors for 26 years. My work included product conception, specification, electrical hardware design (digital and analog), software writing, and even manual writing. I have 24 patents in my field, and I retired at age 48 from salaried work. I'm a jack of many trades.

Coincidentally, my first supervisor at McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics (my first job after university) left the company about a year later to form his own company. You guessed it, he designs, produces, and supports optical ballot reading machines, and has since about 1977.

Now, how could this problem be solved easily? Place a ballot reader at the polling place such that the voter, after marking the ballot, runs it through the reader, which displays the results on a screen in a "Your votes are ... Please verify that you marked your ballot as you desired" format, and which visibly shows any errors it finds and any missing votes. If it doesn't show his votes as he wanted, then he sings out to a pair of supervisors, drops it in the nearby shredder, and requests a new one. If it does show what he wanted, then he drops it in the other reader, which counts the votes, marks the ballot with a bar code showing time, date, and results counted, and stores the counted ballot under lock. Later, a recount could be done manually, by machine, and by audit, in which the results of visually scanning the ballot are checked against what the bar code says was counted.

Easy.

DJ,

It's easy to see now why you're so familiar with logic and why Markadelphia bugs you so much. Something about using it and testing your thinking every day just makes it so much easier to use.

My work is with databases with a specialty in accounting systems and inventory management. We're in different fields with the same rules of logic and immediate feedback.

So I assume that your optical work required you to deal with situations where the results were unclear or borderline. What were your normal procedures in those cases? And did you have the stakeholder in a project ever require deviations from your standard practice?

"Place a ballot reader at the polling place such that the voter, after marking the ballot, runs it through the reader, which displays the results on a screen in a "Your votes are ... Please verify that you marked your ballot as you desired" format, and which visibly shows any errors it finds and any missing votes."

Agreed. It really bugged me that I couldn't verify that the scanner had read my votes correctly. Of course, being a computer guy, I made dead certain that the circles were filled in perfectly.

"If it doesn't show his votes as he wanted, then he sings out to a pair of supervisors, drops it in the nearby shredder, and requests a new one."

I agree with the general flow you have here. Though I can see people getting clenched up over the mere presence of a shredder at a polling place. ("Vote suppression! They're shredding votes they don't like!") Even marking the ballot "VOID" could lead to the same calls, though. There would have to be safeguards such as a voter sticking with his ballot until it's scanned and locked away and/or only allowing shredding in the presence of two supervisors and the voter, maybe even with hardware backups such as requiring two keys (one for each party) in order for a shredder to operate.

And would a separate reader/scanner be needed? I would think it would be more secure (and less expensive) for the machine giving the feedback to be the same one counting the votes. Most printers now have the ability to hold a piece of paper after printing one side then kicking it back to print the other side. I would think it would be no problem to have the scanner hold the sheet until it's verified by the voter at which time it is dropped into the lockbox, or rejected, in which case it's returned to the voter.

What do you think of the percentage in that ballot circle? Less than 50%?

"Well, have a heart, guy."

I just think it would be poetic symmetry in line with "May be my words be soft and sweet, for someday I may have to eat them."

"It's easy to see now why you're so familiar with logic and why Markadelphia bugs you so much. Something about using it and testing your thinking every day just makes it so much easier to use."

Hence my repeated harping on what he does not understand, namely that reality is what it is even if he doesn't like it.

"So I assume that your optical work required you to deal with situations where the results were unclear or borderline. What were your normal procedures in those cases? And did you have the stakeholder in a project ever require deviations from your standard practice?"

I was in a relatively odd situation. I left McDonnell-Douglas after 3 1/2 years for work in a privately held company. I was their senior product design engineer the whole time I was there. That means I got to set the rules that I followed and that my products followed.

Our sales department, particularly the export department, continually asked for deviations from rules. In effect, they wanted a custom design for every customer, even if only a single sale was involved. My strategy was to set a specification, define it rationally, and defend it tooth and nail. Deviations were sometimes allowed, but they had to be justified, based on reasonableness, cost, and support required.

Now, apply that to a mark in a defined area on a ballot. I would design a sensor such that it measures the reflectivity of that area and compares it to the reflectivity of multiple background areas of the ballot that likely do not have any marks. The procedure is to scan the background marks, each with its own sensor, sort the results, throw out any outliers, and find the mean of what's left. Compare the sensor output of the area in question to that mean to detect a mark. Calibrate by scanning a blank document of the same paper.

It doesn't have to be perfect, it simply has to be reasonable, testable, and to rigorously follow its rules. As with any control system, the key is control by feedback. What is most important is that feedback is provided by having the voter check the displayed results of scanning his ballot before handing it over. Errors are caught by the only person who KNOWS they are errors before they leave his control.

"Though I can see people getting clenched up over the mere presence of a shredder at a polling place."

Yup, hence the presence of two supervisors, one from each major party.

"There would have to be safeguards such as a voter sticking with his ballot until it's scanned and locked away and/or only allowing shredding in the presence of two supervisors and the voter, maybe even with hardware backups such as requiring two keys (one for each party) in order for a shredder to operate."

Ah, great minds think alike. The three goals are to make sure the voter approves his own votes, that perfect recounts and audits are possible, and that fraud in the presence of representatives of opposing parties is extremely difficult.

"And would a separate reader/scanner be needed?"

So the marking/verifying/shredding/remarking/reverifying/etc. operation is decidedly distinct and physically separated from relinquishing and securing the ballot, hence no possibility of showing (not "claiming", just "showing") that fraud, such as "They're shredding votes they don't like!", can routinely occur. The voter would vote and verify in one area, then hand over his ballot in another, with a wide separation between the two.

"What do you think of the percentage in that ballot circle? Less than 50%?"

The percentage of area is irrelevant. The question is, "Was it a mark in the circle?" Extraneous detected marks should be caught by the voter's audit of his own ballot scan, not by arbritrary definitions to be followed by the scanner.

The detection should be by the reflectivity of the area, not by the percentage of the area that is marked. I would not guess, rather I would have lots of people where I worked make such marks with pencils, pens, and such, and I would test them. It would result from experimentation, not guesswork. It's just routine engineering, right?

Overall, this is an easy problem to solve. Such solutions are resisted for what reason, except that it makes fraud more difficult?

"The detection should be by the reflectivity of the area, not by the percentage of the area that is marked. I would not guess, rather I would have lots of people where I worked make such marks with pencils, pens, and such, and I would test them."

No matter which method you use (bitmapped scan or optical reflectivity), you would have to allow for some range of variance from pure unmarked to prevent false positives, whether from paper wrinkling during the scan, stray pen marks , or erased pencil. Correct?

I would expect that even using an optical reflectivity method, that the software would receive either a discrete number (more likely) or a percentage range (not likely due to the need to be able to adjust the scanner's response to changing conditions such as the reflectivity of the paper used, legislative changes, etc.). So let's say the discrete value supplied by the scanner covers a range from 1000 (unmarked high reflectivity paper) to 50* (flat black) the software would have to treat values near 1000 as votes and lower values as non-votes. The question is simply where is the line (or lines) drawn.

(*I don't know what the actual values would be. I'm just pulling numbers out of the air to have something to work with. The relative values would still be the same.)

In the example we saw, I would expect the reflectivity would not be as low as a fully filled circle. Again, given the varying laws from state to state, I would expect that exactly where the line is drawn to vary.

"The voter would vote and verify in one area, then hand over his ballot in another, with a wide separation between the two."

I'm not sure that's necessary, or even wise.

At the place where I voted, the machine they used integrated the scanner and lockbox in one unit. The result was that counting the vote and securing the paper trail were a single step which did not allow for manipulation between the counter and audit trail.

One other reason I would like to see the verification and counter machines be the same unit is to make absolutely sure that there is no possibility of getting different reads between two different machines, something I see fairly often just on my own flatbed scanner even when I don't move what I'm scanning. (Yes, I know that the whole idea of marking a circle is to avoid the kinds of errors you see in typical office scanning situations, but we're talking about trying to idiot-proof an idiot prone process.)

The idea is that once you put the ballot into the scanner, it can no longer be modified or shredded as long as the voter approves the review. And if they reject the review, the scanner can kick it back out for shredding. The idea is that if it's in the box, it's exactly what was scanned and validated, and if it's not in the box, it's because the voter rejected it. No ambiguities possible.

"Overall, this is an easy problem to solve. Such solutions are resisted for what reason, except that it makes fraud more difficult?"

I wouldn't say "easy" so much as "doable." Of course, if reducing fraud was actually important to the people in charge, photo IDs would have been required years ago.

"No matter which method you use (bitmapped scan or optical reflectivity), you would have to allow for some range of variance from pure unmarked to prevent false positives, whether from paper wrinkling during the scan, stray pen marks , or erased pencil. Correct?"

Well, all scans, bitmapped or otherwise, are inherently a measure of optical reflectivity. Light is shined on the area to be tested and the reflected light is measured. It could be by one sensor with a lens to focus the light from the entire area, or it could be by multiple sensors (i.e. a bitmapped sensor) onto which the light from the area is focused.

Nonetheless, your observation is essentially correct. Testing should reveal a threshold used to decide whether or not the indicated area is marked or not, and the idea is to eliminate both false positives and false negatives. It is not possible to do this perfectly, thus the need for verification by the individual voter prior to counting.

"One other reason I would like to see the verification and counter machines be the same unit is to make absolutely sure that there is no possibility of getting different reads between two different machines, ..."

A very valid point.

Of course, one could provide a connection between a verification scanner and a tally scanner, but that would involve identifying each ballot uniquely so the two could be syncronized, which would raise its own objections. This horribly violates the KISS principle.

"The idea is that once you put the ballot into the scanner, it can no longer be modified or shredded as long as the voter approves the review. And if they reject the review, the scanner can kick it back out for shredding. The idea is that if it's in the box, it's exactly what was scanned and validated, and if it's not in the box, it's because the voter rejected it. No ambiguities possible."

Nicely done, except for one thing, and that depends on lots of subtleties. The voter must be able to scan his ballot, verify the results, shred and re-marked if necessary, and make his ballot correct according to him, all in private, free from prying eyes. Try as I might, I can't see any single advantage of having one scanner over two, or vice-versa. It is dependent on the procedures used, not on the number of scanners.

Okay, I'm convinced. A single machine, properly designed and used, is fine with me.

Take it further. Voting machines were used for years, and still are, which involve counting the voter's vote when he is the only one to have seen him set the voting levers of the machine, and no paper trail was involved. This solution goes way beyond such problems. It is verifiable to the voter, auditable by the election overseers, and eliminates horseshit voter judging by the Al Frankens and the New York Times of the world.