On Lists… (Alt Title: In which I make some people hate me…)

So currently there are a large number of people screaming about a list that someone compiled of all the politicians in Connecticut that voted for the assault weapons ban.  Predictably the other side promptly held up the list as an indicator as we’re out of control and attempting to “chill debate”.

A bunch of people on our side started screaming about how that not helping, stating that we must perceiver and rely upon the ballot box and the jury box.  I originally wrote this as a reply to someone on Facebook but figured it would be better placed here.

The problem here is we’re all forgetting the scope of the game we’re playing.  Not only that we’re ceding moves and pieces for a perceived moral stature increase that doesn’t actually count much at all in this game.  One side of this is already threatening force.  It however won’t be the politician who kicks in someone’s door at 3am, endangering everyone from law enforcement, to children, to the parents.  Honestly it should be the politician who pays, he’s the one that wrote the check that he’s making everyone else cash.

At the same time many also started screaming “well pack up and move.”  I’d like to point out packing up and moving only works for so long.  Believe me, my family knows quite well, we basically were chased across the US as we kept moving west to stay on the frontier.  The same will keep happening legislatively, and even worse when enough states have fallen, they can be used as examples to infringe on your rights from the federal level.  Think how concealed carry was finally forced upon Illinois.  If everyone had just packed up and moved, would that have changed there?  If everyone just packed up and left for “greener pastures” would concealed carry have been won in the states who didn’t have it?  Plus you end up ceding ground which they then use against you later as an example of what is “allowable”.  Think in the inverse, what if only one state had a CCW law and an attempt at a federal ban on carry was attempted?  49 other states might make SCOTUS go yeah that’s reasonable.

No, you must fight.  Retreat when you must, but do not do so hastily and you must have a plan for coming back.

Frankly inviting all these people from other states that are crashing eventually backfires because many of the same people start voting for the same crap that got them in trouble to begin with.  Believe me, Washington is being overrun with people from California and I’m watching it happen.  Ask people in Texas about the California invasion as well.

But back to the list, politicians, and the game.  I could give two shits about the list.  Doesn’t really matter other than it plays better as a political tool by the opposition than for the friendlies.  So do I wish it had not been published, yeah.  But at the same time it serves are a reminder to the politicians exactly the ballgame they’re playing.  If the card has been dealt in the open you might as well play with the damn thing.

But Barron, we must exercise the soap box, ballot box, and jury box.  We had successes in Colorado with the recall, we don’t need force yet.

Well what am I doing here, and you doing there, and what was he doing by publishing the list?  Last I checked, that all falls in the realm of soap box.  But to think that all states will be OK because one successfully recalled, and was lucky enough to have a recall process, is also naïve.  Not all states have a recall process.

Seriously, the game we’re playing the time periods are much shorter than election cycles and many are acting knowing they will loose their jobs.  They don’t care, they’re being bought by our enemies.  But why would that be?

The first rule of any game is to realize you’re in one.  Their goal is to do the damage with no way to hit “undo”.  Tell me, what is the punishment for passing an unconstitutional law?  What is the punishment for enforcing an unconstitutional law?  Who really pays to right the wrongs and who actually gets the reparations in the end?  Just look at New Orléans and the Katrina fiasco for those answers.

But Barron, I just don’t think the time is right yet…

That is your opinion and you have every right to it.  But, everyone has their own lines in the sand.  If them kicking in the doors to people’s homes and taking them by force, and let’s not bullshit here this is what’s being discussed,  good for you.  Not everyone however views this in the same light and for many that is the line in the sand of no going back.

The enforcement of any laws–local,state or federal–that through the action or inaction of the courts makes nugatory the individual means of resisting tyranny, justifies resistance.

Don’t like it? Get the police to say screw off regarding enforcement.  Currently though there are two sides of this coin, one side is the state wanting, and willing, to use force.  The other side is preparing to strike back, not strike first, at those truly responsible should it happen.

But Barron we should fully exhaust the political route before fighting back.

The British rolled up one April 19th, should we have continued to wait hoping our pleas to the king for a political solution panned out?

No we fought while also trying to achieve a peaceful political solution.   War is an ugly nasty business.  However to dismiss the violence they will bring against you by saying “ballot box” while laying down your arms is already admitting defeat.  Your enemy is willing to use force while you are not.  By default he wins.  You have lost the game.

And that folks is the problem.  Welcome to the pot of boiling water.  The heat was cranked up quite quickly and we very rapidly found ourselves in the very predicament we are in today.  Does it suck?  You bet your ass it does.  Do I  wish it was different?  Yup.  Do I want to have another civil war?  Hell no, but that isn’t really up to me now is it?

In the words of Malcolm Reynolds,

If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back.

The answer to this problem is quite simple, “don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’.”  If this side was as truly blood hungry as the opposition thinks, crap would have already gone down.  At the same time, trying to make us all pacifists by screaming about the Soap, Ballot, and Jury boxes, implies that when a criminal is robbing us we should only every rely on those tools.  Why bother with the firearms at all if we can’t defend ourselves and then go after the person who tried to kill us by proxy?

The ball is truthfully in the state’s court.  All they have to do is respect the rights of their citizens and nothing will happen.  Trample those rights, and well some may fight back.  Some may go after the very people who passed the laws.

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.

Citizens take law into own hands

Not only did the Sheriff’s Office narrow its scope to “life-threatening” situations, but it even encouraged people who felt unsafe to relocate. “… the Sheriff’s Office regretfully advises that, if you know you are in a potentially volatile situation (for example, you are a protected person in a restraining order that you believe the respondent may violate), you may want to consider relocating to an area with adequate law enforcement services,” the original release stated.

Selig’s community watch group, looking to fill in the law enforcement cracks, now meets once a month to discuss crime and teach its approximately 100 members about personal safety. The group also has a trained “response team,” which consists of 12 people who will respond to the scene of a reported non-life-threatening situation if called.

I’ll summarize the full details real quick for everyone.  A county in Oregon lost a federal grant for timber that was a large source of revenue for them.  The county attempted to pass a tax levy to make up the difference, but it was voted down.  Because of this, they cut law enforcement back because that’s the obvious area to reduce funding. *SMH* One of the officers who was forced to retire early because of this mess decides to create a neighborhood watch group that is basically performing some of the duties of law enforcement mainly focused around property crime.  They’re not handing out tickets or arresting anyone, at least from what the article said.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.  There are obviously legal ramifications here.  There are liability issues and then the question of what they do when they are in a situation where they should arrest a person.  So far it seems like everything they’ve been involved in has been pretty harmless, but I’m sure that won’t last forever.  While I don’t agree with the scope of law enforcement at times, I also don’t want to trivialize their job and make it sound like anyone can do it.  Since it’s a prior officer that’s running this thing, I’m hoping that there is some good quality training going on and that the people doing this are prior MIL/LEO.

Some of the citizens are saying that the local government is cutting law enforcement to basically force their hand and get them to approve the levy.  I haven’t seen their budget, but I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if this was the case.  Regardless of whether or not there is enough money, I’m impressed with the citizens’ willingness to step up and get the job done.  While law enforcement isn’t the first place I would think that we should have citizens stepping up to fill the gap, I am glad to see them doing what needs to be done, and I’m really hoping they do it right since this is the type of thing that can set a precedent going forward.

~John

Quote of the Day–Tam (5/31/2013)

A good start would be allowing everybody to serve as their own bodyguard because, when it comes right down to brass tacks, government can’t protect, only punish. Whether your assailant comes at you with ballistic missiles or butcher knives, all the .gov can do is retaliate after the fact.

Be Prepared: You will be your own first responder.

Tam – The government cannot save you.

May 31st, 2013


[As I’ve said before, and even put more succinctly here but it bears repeating.  You are the help, you are the rescue, you are the extraction team.  Accept it, learn it, love it.  -B]
Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.

Quote of the Day–Scholling(5/21/2013)

We would not allow cities or states to require poor women to spend several hundred dollars on training and licensing before having a child or an abortion and I don’t see how it is any more constitutional to require a woman to spend several hundred dollars to obtain a license to defend herself against rape.

Scholling – CalGuns Forum

May 19th, 2013


[I have nothing further to add that I haven’t said before. –B]

h/t David

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.

I Don’t Think They Thought This Through…

So Mom’s Demand Action, a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg, Inc. issued the following statement.  Most of note was this line:

The right of mothers to protect our children SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Evidently in their twisted view of the world there are only a few acceptable means of defending your children.  One small problem with that, their statement in and of itself is full of hypocrisy.  Why?  Let me illustrate with 1000 words with help from A Girl.

DefensiveMom_2

A Girl and her daughter E.

You see, my immediate thought when I read that line of garbage, and it is garbage, was of her and E.  Immediately followed by my friend Laurel:

Image via Oleg Volk.

I could continue down the list of mothers I thought of who would stand opposed to what “Moms Demand Action” is claiming to be right.  Not only do they stand opposed, but the desires of Moms Demand Action stands as a direct infringement to prevent them from doing what they claim to be protecting.

No one is forcing you to pick up a rifle to defend your family.  If you don’t want to, fine, that’s your choice and your business.  If however someone does want to pick up a rifle to defend their family, no one has any right whatsoever to tell them they cannot.   Any attempt to tell a woman she cannot pick up a rifle to defend her children is an infringement on the right to protect their children.  As such, any attempt at gun control whereby arms are removed from the hands of law-abiding citizens is just such an infringement.

So I went through and fixed up their document while adding commentary:

A Mother’s Bill of Rights

We, as mothers, have the absolute right to protect our children families from harm. We have the right to know our children are safe from gun violence, from the moment they leave our arms in the morning until they return home later in the day.  (That sentence is false, see Warren v. District of Columbia.)  We have a right and responsibility to defend our families from those who might do them violence.  But the rights of Americans mothers are under attack by criminals, the gun lobby, and legislators and puritans  who wish to trample those rights while still sticking them with the responsibility are unable to stand up for common-sense gun reforms. The right of mothers people to protect their families our children SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

As mothers people, we have the right to…

 

  • Expect that assault weapons will remain in the hands of our military, not civilians that our right to keep and bear arms in defense of our families and children shall not be infringed.
  • Preserve our children’s innocence and shield them from gun any violence by taking any means necessary to stop it abruptly and swiftly without prejudice. in America, real and scripted(Really, scripted, why don’t you just turn off the TV instead of attacking Free Speech).
  • Demand that all public places remain gun-free zones;’ except private homes and shooting ranges allow the carry of defensive arms by those legally entitled to do so.
  • Know our children are safe in their schools: any school, anywhere, by allowing those who wish to defend our children the tools to do so.
  • Expect our teachers to be focused on teaching our children, not training to become armed guards.  (Because what a teacher does in their own time to defend themselves and your children is a bad horrible thing?)
  •  Demand that our government create the same strong regulations for guns as they have for toys, cars and food.  (Umm, did you miss the fact that firearms are more heavily regulated than all those things combined?)
  • Expect our leaders to put our children’s safety above the profit desire for power and influence of the gun industry those who hate and wish to deny us our rights and personal liberties.
  • Have access to complete, accurate information about the impact of gun violence on our families and communities personal responsibilities we have in ensuring our own family’s safety and wellbeing.
  • Hold our elected officials accountable for keeping our children safe from gun violence breaking their oath to support and defend the constitution.

Seriously, in what world does anything they wrote count as not an infringement.  You all keep using these words rights and infringements and I don’t think any of you on the other side really understand what a right is and what it means to infringe on one.

Not to mention it seems that they think some how their opinion is worth more merely because they are mothers.  Tell me, does the father’s opinion not matter?  Does the opinion of the desire of the husband to defend his wife count for nothing?  Just the same, does the opinion of the wife and mother to carry for the defense of her own family not matter?  No they would rather tell you, me, and everyone else how to live our lives.  Our opinion to them counts for jack.

It doesn’t matter we respect them and their decision not to carry firearms, but they want to force their decisions on the rest of us.  To them I say, “NO!”  I’ve had enough of you taking my cake and you will not get a single solitary inch until you give something back.  I am sick of “compromising” where I give up everything and you give up nothing.  GO TO HELL!  There’s a reason I get angry.

I think this version of the picture of A Girl with some additional text says it best:

Everyone has a right to choose their own tools.

Everyone has a right to choose their own tools.

h/t to Sean.

*If you’d like to use the spoof logo I created:

Moms Demand Action

Feel free to use this, just give me credit if anyone asks. :)

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.

Quote of the Day – Paul Barrett (4/24/2013)

The gun debate has been tilting toward the pro-gun side for more than a dozen years. The Boston Marathon bombings will continue that trend.

Paul Barrett – The Boston Terror Will Benefit the NRA, Hurt Gun Control

April 23rd, 2013


[Let me start off by saying, Paul was trying to be fair though there were a few comments that I don't really agree with.  For example attacking Wayne LaPierre or this little bit at the end of his article.

But the NRA and some of its friends are not interested in rational discourse. They thrive on slippery-slope reasoning, according to which any limit on guns is a mere precursor to firearm registration and confiscation. As any gun manufacturer will tell you, the 9/11 attacks helped sales at firearm counters around the country and strengthened the NRA’s hand in lobbying against greater federal restrictions.

Paul most people, even the NRA, are willing to have a rational discourse.  The problem is there are so many irrational people on the other side trying to control the conversation the only reasonable thing is to just shut it all down.  For example look at Fienstein and what she was pushing and trying to tack on to that bill.  Moving further forward that bill honestly didn't have anything really to do with background checks.  The people pushing for the bill even admit it would have not made any difference at  any of the mass shootings.

So is it irrational that we want to put on the breaks, let the emotion die, and approach this in a rational and reasoned manner instead of an emotional hysteria?

There were a few other errors, such as the comment regarding background checks for commercial firearms sales.  That is already required by federal law, so are we redefining commercial sales to include any sale?  Including letting someone borrow a firearm? At which point if you exempt it, today's exemption is tomorrows loophole, not to mention how do you define and prove "borrowing".

Paul's conclusion though is correct and can easily be seen with this poll.

Sixty-nine percent say if they were in a situation similar to Bostonians, they would want a gun in their house.  

That includes a large 88-percent majority of those in gun-owner households, as well as 50 percent of those in non-gun homes.

As noted by Weer'd the lock-down also occurred in one of the most difficult areas to get a gun permit.  I expect there will be a large influx of new owners in that area.  Many of them will have an experience much like this individual.

"You'll need a license for that," the clerk informed me when I asked to see a modestly-priced BB gun.  Surprised but undaunted, I whipped out my drivers license and slid it across the counter.  At which point it was obvious to me that it was obvious to him I'm not a gun person. 

"To buy a gun in New Jersey you need a Firearm Purchaser ID Card from your Township's police chief.  Even a BB gun.  Can't even take one down to show you without it."

Many had a wake up call last Friday.  Couple that with incidents like this, it's no wonder people want to buy firearms for their own defense.

Then Angela Kramer softly pleads for help as the gunman who killed her parents and brother seconds earlier searches for her inside the family’s Darien home.

“I’m in my house. There’s shooting,” Kramer tells the operator in a low voice immediately after the loud gunshot.

...

Kramer’s 911 call lasted for more than 55 minutes until police searched the darkened house and rescued her from her hiding place.

Boy, Chicago's restrictive gun laws while pushing reliance on the police really helped that family now didn't it.

Last weeks incident served as wake-up call to many, doubly so since it was a citizen who was confined to his house that found the man on the run after they lifted the lock-down.  I'm sure that man probably would prefer to have a firearm the next time he investigates something out of place.

*As an additional aside.  I've met Paul and his wife both and they were both extremely nice.  I do not think Paul was trying to slight gun owners as a whole or even directly wanted was was really in that bill.  Odds are the particular publication for which he works had a serious hand in the tone of the article.

I do not know of any gun owner who actively supports giving firearms to criminals.  We all know damn well how that would have a negative affect on us and our rights.  What we don't want though is the state coming in and arbitrarily denying or delaying the rights of law-abiding people because in the end, we know the criminals will still get their hands on a firearm.  The comments within that article do nothing more than aid in driving a wedge and turning off the other side causing them to ignore you and your position.

I do not think any firearm owner would complain about providing additional tools to aid people in "doing the right thing".  Where we all have a problem is trying to trace that and enforce it under law.  It becomes this complicated problem fraught with danger because it will become all to easy to criminalize someone who would actually be innocent. -B]

 

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.

Quote of the Day – God, Gals, Guns, Grub (4/2/2012)

So where am I headin’ with this whole diatribe… well I’m tired of gals who tell me they’d do anything to protect they’re kids when they don’t have a plan, training, or tools for that night when some scumbag kicks in their door during a home-invasion. You don’t need a “rape whistle” or to fire off a double-barrel shotgun into the air. You need sound advice and the determination to take care of yourself and survive no matter what you encounter.

It’s not paranoia, just reality and the world we live in… so… To the weaker sex… accept it and plan accordingly!

God, Gals, Guns, GrubTo the weaker sex: accept it, plan accordingly!

April 2nd, 2013


 

[I have nothing else to add that he didn't say in that post.  Which I recommend reading the whole thing.

Some may be upset by what he said, but the fact of the matter is just because it's politically incorrect doesn't make it false.  We have tools and people are perfectly capable of learning the skills necessary to defend themselves.  It's much easier though to say evil men just shouldn't do that.

Well I'm sorry folks, evil men do exist and the prey on those weaker than them.  Accept it and plan accordingly. -B]

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.

Quote of the Day–John Klein (3/23/2013)

If I had known this would come from those mags, I would have purchased them for that sole purpose.

John Klein – IM Conversation

March 22nd, 2013


[The magazines in question can be seen here.  Screen shot is below, though it’s worth clicking over just to read the whole debate it started (I will include the best part).

image

You can probably already guess who the problem child was in that threat of comments.  Read through them the debate was interesting even if honestly it fits the script I’ve seen 100 times.  Seriously I don’t know how they do it but I swear every “debate” goes through the exact same evolution. The kicker though is during that evolution they always do the same thing at one particular point.

image

And that folks, ended the debate.  Seriously, he stayed quite after that.  Though there is one other comment that frankly had me laughing my ass off.

image

I think Matthew’s final observation there nails it.  I gave plenty of counter anecdotal evidence along with information he could independently verify.  Instead he alluded to the idea that John and I are compensating for something.  Yup, that’s the sign of the winning argument there. –B]

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.