Monday News Links

Trying to do a little more blogging over the weekend to make up for being busy during the week. We will be taking a break from the blog somewhat during the holiday weekend, but given how dry the news cycle has been, you might not notice. Seems a collapse of the health care system is something people really want to pay attention to!

Vancouver bans doorknobs. No, seriously. But notice how the nanny staters have infiltrated even Popular Science? If your house has knobs, and you want levers, it’s an easy thing to negotiate at sale. It’s cheap. A few hundred bucks would do my whole house. But I hate levers because they get caught on things.

If you ignore the adrenaline dumps and the blood pressure spikes this is a very, very good book.” – Joe Huffman on “Emily Gets her Gun.” More here.

More on the Melissa Bachman controversy: Stupidity is a luxury.

Outgoing NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly blind to his gun control hypocrisy.

Bigotry on parade. I would be ashamed to have such low quality followers. Not that we don’t have intolerant ignoramuses on our side, but I’ve never agreed with running things in such a way as to attract them.

The gun control groups hit a new low when it comes to deception: when you can’t achieve, just lie about it.

Surprising strength in the GOP with female hispanic candidates.

Via Instapundit, a tale of an SR-71 pilot who survived his aircraft breaking up at 78,000 feet and Mach 3. Well worth reading. It was amazing they put that aircraft together with what was essentially 1950s technology.

Why opposition to gun control has increased. I think there’s more to it than that.

Canadians get fun toys we don’t because in some ways their import laws are less strict than ours.

Against Basic Tenets of American Justice

I do believe that it is, in fact, a basic tenet of not only American justice, but of English justice, that when one is found not guilty of a charge, that means all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizenship are fully restored. Sadly, it seems our opponents in the gun control movement don’t even believe in that:

The irony of all of this is that he has already killed someone with a gun but he got his guns and his rights back after the trial. Why? Because that is what the gun rights extremists want. They think it’s perfectly fine for someone like George Zimmerman to be able to possess and carry lethal weapons around even after that person has already killed someone with a gun.

He was found not guilty of the crime of murder by a jury of his peers. So yes, that is what I want. I want people who are found not guilty to not be punished by the law as if they had been. If that makes me a “gun rights extremist,” I’ll wear the banner proudly. I tend to think that just makes me a believer in the basic tenets of justice and human rights.

Regardless of what kind of trouble Zimmerman has found himself in since his acquittal (to me it almost seems like he wants to go to jail) he has not yet been found guilty of any crime serious enough to warrant deprivation of rights. Do the leaders of the gun control movement really want to argue that people found not guilty of crimes should be punished anyway? Do you really want to argue that someone found not guilty of a crime should be found guilty anyway, just because you know he’s guilty? If you think that, pardon me if I do question your patriotism, and belief in the basic legal institutions that have served this country for more than two centuries.

A Guilty Pleasure

I am actually a closet connoisseur of conspiracy theories and various forms of eccentricity. I don’t believe in them, but I’m fascinated by them and by those who do, especially those who believe enough to go to jail. This guy is a quality eccentric, right down to the manner of dress. The world would indeed be a duller place without people like this:

“I cannot ma’am,” Tertelgte continued. “I have to honor the founders ma’am. I honor the memory of those who fought and died that we can be free of this type of thing.”

Tertelgte was then ordered out of the court room and two officers asked him to stand up.

“If I stand up I give you recognition,” he said. “No, pick me up. I cannot give you recognition.”

Awesome. The linked article includes video.

UPDATE: Here’s more information on what he was speaking about in regards to the prosecuting attorney:

The American Bar is an offshoot from London Lawyers’ Guild & was established by people with invasive monopolistic goals in mind. In 1909 they incorporated this TRAITOROUS group in the state of Illinois & had the State Legislature (which was under the control of lawyers) pass an unconstitutional law that only members of this powerful union of lawyers, called the “ABA,” could practice law & hold all the key positions in law enforcement & the making of laws.

Attorneys also use the title “Esquire” which is, in the view of people who believe this, a title of nobility, and prohibited by the Constitution. You have to admit it has a certain logic to it. He did get up and scream about fringed flags in his arraignment, but declaring the Court to be administering British Ministerial Law is a new one I hadn’t heard of before.

Knives and the Second Amendment

The law review article by Clayton Cramer, Joe Olson, and Dave Kopel, arguing that knives are just as much deserving of Second Amendment protection as firearms, has just hit the printers. I’d also throw chemical defensive sprays, tasers, and electric stun guns into that mix eventually as well, but one step at a time. Knives are probably among the oldest arms human beings recognize, and currently have far less legal protection than firearms. I can carry a Glock 19 into the City of Philadelphia and there’s nothing the corrupt politicians can do about it. But they absolutely could pinch for for carrying a 3 inch folding knife. Firearms regulation enjoy statewide preemption. Knives and other weapons? Not so much.

Hunting is Doomed, Exhibit B

Despite not being a hunter myself, I’ve “unliked” a lot of pages on Facebook this week over the outrage regarding Melissa Bachman’s South African safari. It’s not that I think people can’t have different opinions about hunting, but at least know what it is you’re really opposing before getting worked up and outraged. I’ve also just hit my limit for people who preach tolerance and understanding, but who then turn around and display the opposite out of ignorance. My patience for it has worn out. Continuing on my assertion that hunting is in a lot of trouble, I bring you this from the comments of George Takei’s post joining in the Bachman hate:

HuntingComment

This is the old “I’m a gun owner, but ….” just in another context. This kind of attitude is what’s going to kill hunting, because hunters still think it’s OK to argue about what hunting is and isn’t. This guy has just giving close to 6000 people, on a page “liked” by millions, moral cover for their outrage at a fellow hunter. Hunters will sell the animal rights movement the rope they will use to hang them. If you want to understand why in the shooting community, we’re so quick to knife traitors, this is why. Hunting has to develop the same kind of message discipline if they want their pastime to survive.

Hunting pays for the vast majority of wildlife conservation in this world, and hunters have been at the forefront of preserving nature and the environment. It was the famous hunter and president, Teddy Roosevelt, who helped establish the North American model for wildlife conservation. Hunting has a great story to tell. More importantly, it has a great green story to tell. It’s story has great appeal across a broad spectrum of non-hunters. But how can hunting tell its story when hunters are busier throwing other hunters under the bus than they are fighting for hunting’s future?

UPDATE: Why, for instance, did it take a non-hunter to put out a spectacular defense like this?

Petty Tyrants & Nannies

You’ll need to pardon me for venting, but I’m just getting really sick of petty tyrants and nanny staters in all walks of life. It’s not just in the gun issue. It turns out that my newest hobby – genealogy – has some rather extreme examples, as I have recently discovered.

Getting into genealogy, you quickly learn that you will never stop learning and that you’ll never know everything. You have to understand people, families, history, local issues to where everyone was living, etc. The best example of just how complicated it can get just doing the paperwork genealogy is in this summary of a shifting political boundary situation highlighted in a DAR brochure: “Thus, in 1800, a man who had lived on the same land in Mason County for less than a quarter of a century had resided in two states and five counties, and he had not moved an inch!” This doesn’t include the nightmare of different record keeping requirements for different times and states. In other words, you have to be a naturally curious person who is eager to learn in order to effectively and correctly conduct genealogical research.

Now, mix in genetic genealogy. This means taking DNA tests to discover genetic cousins who you might not have found yet doing traditional genealogy. This also means learning even more about science so you know how to use those results, along with everything you need to know about traditional genealogy. In other words, you have to be a seriously inquisitive person to really take up this hobby. Sebastian and I are pretty inquisitive folks, so we’ve been learning quite a lot as we go along.

To supplement our learning, I joined a Facebook group set up by super users of an atDNA comparison tool to learn from the conversations and questions that come up there. It’s administered by a couple of women who are very experienced with genetics, so I have learned some things. (For example, there’s a ~50% chance that any of your given 4th cousins won’t show up as a DNA match, despite the fact that you both likely carry at least some DNA from the people who were your common ancestors.) However, I recently discovered that these women are kind of psychotic gatekeepers. It’s like the worst stereotypes of the church trying to keep the masses uneducated for their own good in that place.

I merely argued that Maryland’s current system that restricts DNA testing through companies like 23andMe is silly because people shouldn’t be given barriers to their own genetic information. Good lord, it’s like I advocated for complete anarchy. “But people might get confused!” “But people might not interpret something correctly!” “What if someone makes a bad decision?” Suggesting that people make poor decisions every day and that there are already many things that confuse many people, and that maybe confusion is what inspires learning got me banned. Yup, banned. (More about the NY & MD restrictions on DNA testing here if you’re interested.)

We’re not talking guns here, folks. We’re talking education. They were appalled that I would suggest opening up the doors of testing that might lead more people to better understand their own personal DNA. I was actually criticized for being possibly more reasonable than other people and daring to assume that others are even capable of being as logical as I might be.

But it didn’t stop there.

Someone posted a link to a genetic genealogy blogger who recently solved a 30-year genealogy mystery through DNA connections and she used thresholds lower than normal to do it. They are normally thresholds of measuring DNA that aren’t worth investigating because they are too small to easily point you in the right direction. However, because this woman has discovered many genetic cousins and identified their common ancestors, she knows how to effectively use these smaller connections and tells people about her success. In the group run by petty tyrants, she was condemned for daring to share her discovery because somewhere, someone might possibly read it and get their hopes up about making connections on these small shared DNA segments.

So, in other words, they are against giving people access to their DNA results since someone might get confused. They are against bloggers blogging about how they have successfully used DNA results to make genealogical discoveries because someone might get confused. They are against allowing conversation on topics which might confuse people, too. (They recently announced a ban in the group on conversations about smaller segment DNA matches since even the conversation might confuse people.) To me, it was like the BS that Chicago initially tried to pull after McDonald – you need training, but we won’t allow ranges where you can learn. The same thing in Boston (assuming they still do this) where you have to shoot a certain score on a target to get your gun license, but you can’t buy your own handgun to practice with until you get the license.

I don’t know how you solve this problem when their ultimate goal is to keep people stupid. Clearly, this is not a new attitude in human history. We’ve seen it repeated over and over. Regardless, it still drives me nuts since I can’t seem to get away from them, even when I take up a new hobby!

NSSF Considered Leaving Newtown

This is interesting. According to an AP interview with NSSF’s CEO, they considered moving their Newtown headquarters where they have been for 20 years in response to the shooting there.

The article says that even though they didn’t get political until the gun control proposals that would hurt the industry were brought up, their employees who were also impacted by the shooting were still bothered by neighbors who complained about their presence.

Looks Gimmicky

SayUncle has a video highlighting a new AR-15 trigger system. It looks to me like a semi-auto trigger, just one where the characteristics of the trigger change if you switch it to the fun setting. My guess is that the switch makes it a hair trigger, which is easier to fire faster. If you look at the video, it looks like the shooter is squeezing for each round fired.

I’m not sure why you wouldn’t just put a good trigger in your AR, though. The primary benefit, that I can see, is that it allow you to look all cool to the other dudes at the range by flipping your selector to the “auto” setting. The marketing seems to suggest this special trigger will make you a total high-speed, low drag, badass. Because of this, I expect it will sell well.

Philadelphia Bans 3D Gun Printing

It is now illegal to hit “Print …” in Philadelphia, if the thing you loaded was a design for a firearm.

Which is interesting, because the author of the bill, Kenyatta Johnson, isn’t aware of of any local gun-printing 3-D printers. ”It’s all pre-emptive,” says Johnson’s director of legislation Steve Cobb. “It’s just based upon internet stuff out there.”

It’s not “preemptive,” it’s just stupid. It’s up there in terms of ignorance with burning witches. It’s not going to preempt anybody, because no one is going to be dissuaded from hitting “Print …” if they are seriously intending to cause harm. It is also quite arguably, and ironically, given Johnson’s quote, preempted by state law banning cities and local communities from regulating firearms.

It is not unusual for people who don’t understand new technology to be frightened by it. That goes double if you’re a politician. The same primitive fears of the unknown were responsible for all manner of laws when the automobile first appeared, or really any new technology first appeared on the scene. Life among the barbarians, I suppose.

New Rules on Lost and Stolen Guns?

Apparently the Obama Administration are drafting new rules, along with ATF, who know a thing or two about losing track of guns, I hear:

Currently, gun dealers with a federal license are required to tell federal agents after they discover a firearm has gone missing, but they aren’t required to do routine checks.

“They can discover a gun missing today and have no idea when it went missing, which really makes that information useless to law enforcement,” said Chelsea Parsons, associate director of crime and firearms policy at the Center for American Progress.

The White House office has 90 days to review the proposed rule before releasing it to the public and allowing them to comment.
My guess is they will require inventory be taken on some ridiculous and burdensome regular interval. Anything to harass more dealers out of the business. What’s interesting it that appropriations riders prevent ATF from implementing such a rule. This is definitely something to keep an eye on.