Articles by Herschel Smith

Reason:

California Gov. Jerry Brown will soon decide whether to sign a bill that expands his state’s “assault weapon” ban to cover any centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine. That’s a very broad category, the National Rifle Association notes, since “millions of semi-automatic rifles have magazines that can be removed with the push of a button,” including “classic hunting rifles like the Remington Woodsmaster, Browning BAR, and the Ruger 99/44, among many others.” The actual language of the bill, S.B. 374, refers rather confusingly to “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.” The NRA argues that the bill’s definition of a fixed magazine—”an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action”—is ambiguous, since “‘disassembly of the firearm action’ is undefined and nobody (least of all the legislators who voted for it) knows what it means, or for that matter even what a firearm ‘action’ actually is.” But the intended target seems to be any rifle with a detachable magazine that fires rounds of a caliber bigger than .22 (generally the upper limit these days for cheaper, flimsier rimfire cartridges). Hence Fox News says the bill “exempts .22-caliber rim fire rifles,” although the legislation does not directly address caliber.

The author, Jacob Sullum, isn’t kidding.  Read the sentence lifted directly out of the bill.

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.

They’ve put a double-negative into the sentence.  What this sentence means is anyone’s guess, and yours is as good as mine.  Farther into the bill, they’ve outlawed pistol grips on shotguns.

But back to the issue of hunting rifles, presumably (since the bill is a mass of confusion and no one knows for sure), bolt action rifles are “assault weapons” if they have a detachable magazine (and some do).

Hey.  No one said totalitarians were smart people.  They’re just control freaks.

The Blaze:

The Republican leadership, however, has  ”drunk the Kool-aid regarding the Hispanic vote believing they will get more votes by getting this issue off the table and Republican leadership, under enormous pressure from Corporate Lobbyists  – also want to increase foreign labor through the visa program.”

We’ve discussed this before, this mistaken notion that Hispanics will ever vote GOP by any significant margin.  I explained:

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

Hispanics are not historically and ideologically aligned with what the GOP is supposed to be.  To point to Roman Catholicism and claim that Hispanics will vote GOP because of socially conservative viewpoints misses the bigger picture of the state of Catholicism in South and Central America.  It is a synthesis, or a hybrid mixture, of Catholicism, superstition, Marxism, and in some cases evil “patron saints” for the cartel criminals.

The analogy isn’t drinking the Kool Aid.  Right now the GOP is alive, although just barely.  The folks who drank the Kool Aid died.  And so too will the GOP if they push their plans for immigration in quest of the Hispanic votes that will never materialize.

Kurt Hofmann:

Indeed, Mr. Gelman, by all means, re-brand the position of forcible citizen disarmament advocates as a demand for “no guns.” Boldly acknowledge what the gun ban groups no longer dare admit.

Kurt deals with a writer who advocates the complete ban on guns.  The Washington Times carried something similar (one wonders if these kooks plan their attacks or if this is just happenstance).

Why don’t we just take guns out of the picture entirely?

Why don’t we just halt the possession, manufacture and importation of firearms altogether? But not just for civilians, for everyone.

The writer goes on to advocate the absence of firearms for the police, armed forces and  all hunters.  The police won’t need firearms if the public doesn’t have any.  The armed forces won’t have to repel invasions – we haven’t had to do that for hundreds of years.  Hunters will learn to use bows.

Forget the Pollyanna universe in which this pitiful soul lives, the one in which he can remove all sin by removing machines from our lives.  We would need to ban assault hammers too.

One paragraph sticks out and bears debunking for readers.

Using the term “high powered” rifle is also ineffective and incorrect. The “high powered assault rifles” are mainly 5.56×45 chambered weapons, which is a round designed by NATO to allow for low recoil, making soldiering easier for smaller framed individuals in NATO allied militaries to wield the rifles. These weapons were designed to wound so that other enemy soldiers would be forced to tend to their fallen comrades, effectively taking them out of the fighting.

There are so many problems with this paragraph I don’t know where to begin.  First of all, I don’t own an assault rifle because mine doesn’t have selective fire.  Second, we are led to believe that we use the 5.56 mm because of the “little people.”  This is so absurd as to be laughable.

The point of the cartridge is moderate recoil which makes it easier to obtain proper sight picture for the next round, especially with selective fire weapons.  Finally, as we have discussed before, the 5.56 mm round yaws in flight, shattering upon impact to leave multiple wound tracks.  To say that the intent was to wound rather than kill is patently false and silly.

When gun grabbers attempt to discuss guns they look silly and sophomoric because they don’t know what they’re talking about.  But it’s nice to have some honesty.  As we’ve also seen, an outright gun ban and confiscation is what the folks at Daily Kos want as well.

UPDATE: Kurt points out that the Washington Times piece was parody.  Very good parody.

I’m not going to get detailed in why I am saying what I am about to say.  Go and read this post – Encryption Via A One-Time Pad – at Dan Morgan’s place.  Also, all of this is courtesy of Mosby via WRSA.

The post is interesting, especially the more rudimentary methods of communication, which I think are far superior to the high tech methods.  Then again, this kind of stuff is interesting to me, and perhaps few others.  I suspect that this kind of thing would be useful under certain circumstances, but not me, and not right now.

If I had ever wanted to be anonymous, that ship left port years ago.  I have been tracked by CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, DHS, Department of State and *.mil network domains ever since I posted real examples of the sinfully restrictive ROE in Iraq and Afghanistan (from folks who were there).  I’ve seen it from network domains that visited my site.  Eventually, I lost interest in that and simply assume that I’m being watched all of the time on everything.  Again, that horse left the barn a long time ago.  I cannot ever be anonymous again.  I have given some thought to how I might return to normal life again, but only thoughts.

But regarding the post on encryption, the issue of random number generators comes up.  Morgan says some of the random number generators are “pseudo-random number generators.”

I have to get all pointy head here, and I fear that the more I do this, the larger the chance is that I give away who I am and what I do.  I just want to keep that separate from my blogging if I can.  But here it goes.  There are guys who do their entire post-doctoral work on developing random number generators at the National Labs for Monte Carlo computer codes.  There are tests for randomness – ten in all the last time I read the papers and listened to the presentations.

Listen.  All random number generators are pseudo-random number generators.  None are truly random.  With a given random number seed, a random number generator will generate the same sequence of numbers every time it is launched.  Monte Carlo computer code users are constantly aware of whether they are exceeding the random number stride with any specific calculation.  There are tricks used as work-arounds if they do, such as choosing a random number seed that happens to be different than the default value, or different than the one they chose earlier.  But the simple question is this: Do you understand that you cannot just launch the application and assume that you get “random numbers?”

But also listen to me on this.  The folks that propose to rule us have access to all of these random number generators.  If you use a random number generator like it’s a black box and generate the same sequence of “random numbers” every time you use it, your communications will become predictable.

What’s the point?  Just be aware that you cannot use a piece of technology as a black box.  You have to be at least semi-educated in order to make proper use of any technology, and don’t assume that you are any more than one step ahead of your opponent, even if you’ve changed what you did since the last time you did it.

Okay.  End of pointy head lecture.

The New Yorker:

Two more thoughts about gun control: one practical and immediate, the other more abstract and academic, though with a practical fork in its tail. The practical comes from a recent discussion with my father, about, of all things, shooting raccoons. The Gopnik family seat, such as it is, is nowhere near Manhattan, Upper West or East Side, but rather a farm in remote rural Ontario, where my parents live surrounded by crops, animals, and pests—and indeed by farmers who need and use rifles. When I was talking to my father there last weekend, we discussed a recent raccoon infestation, and how he had called on a neighbor with a rifle to hightail it over to shoot the five unfortunate masked marauders beneath the back porch. (My dad buried them afterward, further proof that English professors can be eminently practical people.) My dad is actually a pretty good shot, and could have done it himself—but he had not finished the paperwork for his gun.

What onerous tasks are involved in getting a gun for the necessary work of rural life in Canada? Well, you have to do that paperwork, fill out an application for a license, take a gun-safety course, and then you have your raccoon-shootin’ rifle for the grim work of keeping off pests. (There are some other “controls”; if you have a longstanding dispute, for instance, your spouse is informed.) Does anything in this interfere with the liberty of the individual or the exigencies of rural life? No one disputes that there are sane reasons for ordinary people to need a rifle. But there is no imaginable, meaningful sense in which Canadians, or Australians, are “less free” when it comes to guns because they have to take a safety course before they use one. People who really need guns—and many, my folks among them, do—can get them and use them safely, while there are hedgerows, so to speak, against impulsive purchases or unsafe or frankly homicidal use.

What we can learn from Canada is how to legislate common sense without violating anyone’s liberty—unless you imagine that anyone’s liberty depends on having as many weapons as he wants whenever he wants them.

Why yes, Adam, and I don’t have to imagine it.  I should be able to have as many weapons as I want, whenever I want – and I should add, whatever kind I want.  It goes hand in hand with my liberty.  My liberty also includes things like not having the federal government collect my wages by the power of a badge and gun, not having to disperse my hard-earned wealth to those who don’t work, not bailing out fat cats and corrupt cities, not having my e-mails and phone coversations reviewed by government employees, and not having my medical care dictated to me by government bureaucrats.

Justice Stevens and I don’t see eye to eye.

Justice Stevens, in his eloquent, essential dissent in the Supreme Court’s “Heller” case, shows that the history of the Second Amendment “makes abundantly clear that the Amendment should not be interpreted as limiting the authority of Congress to regulate the use or possession of firearms for purely civilian purposes.”

Adam, you think this dissent is essential because you’re a totalitarian, and I’m not.  Progressives are totalitarians, each and every one of you.  You and he can twist words that read “shall not be infringed” and turn it into “may be infringed at any time and in any way because we want to.”  Stevens and you are liars, Adam.  At the root of things, you’ve just dishonest.  And that bit about “purely civilian purposes” is important.  In order to be consistent, Stevens would have to say that Congress does not in fact have the authority to regulate weapons not for civilian use.  There is no check on the executive under his schema.

Do you understand this essential point, Adam?

Providence Journal:

The Rhode Island GOP’s attempt to raise money by raffling off guns, including Smith & Wesson’s version of the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle linked to the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre, is stirring controversy even within state Republican ranks.

State Republican Chairman Mark Smiley said the winners of the party’s gun raffle this Sunday at the South County Rod & Gun Club will have to pass background checks.

“The weapon will be held, and the winner given a certificate,” Smiley said. “That certificate will be redeemable at the gun shop that donated the weapon. After the winner passes both state and federal background checks and has waited the required week, they will take possession of the weapon.”

Nonetheless, three of the potential major party candidates for governor panned the idea, including Cranston Mayor Allan Fung, the potential GOP candidate. The attorney general and his potential Republican opponent also criticized the idea.

Among the words the high-profile critics used to describe this latest GOP fundraising tack: “outrageous,” “disgusting,” “insensitive.” A sampling of their comments:

“While I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, as a former criminal prosecutor I have strong reservations against the raffling of a semiautomatic weapon,” Fung said. “This is not something that I would ever do to raise campaign funds.”

Do you understand now?  Do you still believe that there is any real difference between the Republicans and Democrats?  Folks, I just don’t know else to say it other than to keep pointing out the obvious.  Some places are irrecoverable.  They cannot be saved.  Rhode Island is just such a place, and if you’re a liberty loving gun owner who lives in Rhode Island, your best bet is to get out of there to a free state.  Quickly.

Maryland is sued in federal court over recent gun laws:

Gun-rights activists in Maryland have filed a federal lawsuit to block the state’s new gun law before new requirements on assault weapons and large magazines go into effect Oct. 1.

In the lawsuit in filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Maryland, the plaintiffs argues the the Second Amendment and case law protect their right to own assault rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, The Baltimore Sun reported.

The plaintiffs include the Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, and several other organizations, individuals and gun shops, according to the report.

Maryland responds that it’s too little, too late.  I question this move on both a tactical and strategic level.  First of all, the tactics of a challenge in federal court is like turning to the Leviathan to defang the Leviathan.  It’s unlikely, and a bit strange.

Strategically it might also be a mistake.  As I’ve said before, the Second Amendment doesn’t speak to states.  It frames the federal planners to restrict their actions.  The best option would have been to deal with this issue locally and within the state of Maryland.  If Maryland is too far gone to turn the tide of totalitarianism, then it’s time to move.

David Codrea notes some activism in Ohio.

An email sent by the president of the League of Women Voters of Hudson (Ohio) to its membership yesterday recruited support to overturn the state’s preemption laws on guns.

“If you are concerned by gun violence, you may be interested in Oberlin’s request for help on getting legislation to allow home rule with regard to banning firearms in city parks,” President Karen Swedenborg advised members. “This is a grass roots effort, if you are interested, contact me.”

Read the rest at Examiner.  Goof grief.  The League of Women Voters still exists?  David is right to have been involved in fighting attempts to overturn state preemption laws.  North Carolina still has a form of those on the books for cities and municipalities, as well as CLEO approval of handgun purchases.  We have our demons to deal with as well.

But the state is the right place to fight the fight until we secede from the union, after which it will be the only place to fight the fight.

I watched this weekend at my son Joshua’s house as Heidi (my Doberman) decided that she wanted to meet the dog next door, and she jumped a four foot privacy fence.  I assumed that the fence would be a barrier to her and I didn’t have her shock collar on.  I assumed wrong.

And you’ve seen the video of bears jumping up and down on their front legs to warn you before they attack?  A couple of weeks ago I witnessed Heidi exhibiting the same behavior.  She barked so loudly that she hurt my ears, while each bark was timed with her paws landing on the floor.  I don’t recall who she saw on the sidewalk, but she was pissed, and I wouldn’t have wanted her outside at the moment.

And then there is this.

She literally arranged the pillows, crashed on the couch, and then pulled the blanket over her.  I kid you not.  At about 85 pounds, her long legs have to hang off.

Shhh! … don’t tell my wife.  Heidi isn’t allowed on the couch, and if my wife knew about this Heidi would be done for.  In a throw-down between my wife and Heidi, Heidi doesn’t stand a chance.

ABC:

Immigration overhaul legislation has been dormant in the House for months, but a few Republicans are working behind the scenes to advance it at a time the Capitol is immersed in a partisan brawl over government spending and President Barack Obama’s health care law.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, has been discussing possible legal status for the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. He’s also been working with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a fellow Virginia Republican, on a bill offering citizenship to immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children.

Reps. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, and Ted Poe, R-Texas, are working on a plan to create a visa program allowing more lower-skilled workers into the country.

Goodlatte and the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, hold out hopes for floor action by late October on a series of immigration bills that already have passed their committees.

“I would think that would be the next agenda item in the queue after we’re done with this mess,” McCaul said this past week, referring to bitter divisions over the health law, the level of government spending and the growing federal debt.

The attention of House GOP leaders seems certain to remain squarely focused on the fiscal disputes until they are resolved, leaving immigration on a back burner for some time to come. But lawmakers and outside advocates insist that three months after the Democratic-led Senate passed a sweeping immigration bill, the issue is showing signs of life in the Republican-run House.

“Despite the appearance that would suggest everyone in Washington is focused on one thing, work is going on on other issues beneath the radar,” said Tamar Jacoby, head of ImmigrationWorks USA, a coalition of small businesses that supports comprehensive immigration legislation.

Goodlatte has made it clear he wants to see the issue solved.

That’s a lie.  The GOP doesn’t want to see the issue solved.  This could be done quickly and easily.  Militarize the border, shoot people who try to cross illegally, inspect every package and vehicle at every checkpoint, and implement E-Verify.  What the GOP wants to do is flood the country with tens of millions of democratic voters who will install socialist leaders for the next century.

Why?  Because they’re sellouts and traitors.  They cannot help but be that, because it’s in their nature.  It’s like my dog Heidi who returns to her vomit and eating the same thing (usually grass and live bugs) that caused her to vomit in the first place, or who agitates and annoys the crap out of poisonous snakes regardless of the fact that she’s been bitten by a Copperhead and knows what it’s like.  She cannot help herself.  Neither can the GOP – like a dog to its vomit.  Most of them are traitors, and they will never be anything but traitors.  They cannot be changed, and politics as usual is not a solution to the moral sickness that grips America.

CBS Connecticut:

The Paradis and D’Avino family knows guns. They’ve owned them and enjoyed hunting and target shooting. Shooting was just part of life, like the time after Thanksgiving dinner in 2009 when a guest of husband and wife Peter Paradis and Mary D’Avino brought out an AR-15 rifle he had in the car.

Together, with their children, the couple spent time shooting at a tree in their backyard on five acres off heavily wooded Route 61.

Paradis and his stepdaughter, Hannah D’Avino, recalled that holiday afternoon recently. They sat their kitchen table and reminisced about Hannah’s sister, Rachel D’Avino.

Rachel D’Avino died Dec. 14, 2012, inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Twenty first-grade students and six staff members died when Adam Lanza, a 20-year-old Newtown resident who had attended that elementary school, stormed into the building with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. He shot his way through classrooms, then killed himself as police converged.

The rifle that killed their stepdaughter and sister was the same kind of military-style rifle the family had shot together that Thanksgiving Day. They’re commonly called assault weapons, a term once applied to fully automatic weapons used on the battlefield but now applied to semi-automatic military copycats given the same look, but not the ability to fire continuously with one pull of the trigger.

Let’s pause there for a moment and review the media explanation of guns.  The term “assault weapons” was not once, ever in history, used to describe what the military uses (which is technically referred to as assault rifle).  As we’ve discussed before, the concept of assault rifle involved three features: intermediate cartridge, mild recoil and selective fire.

Since the typical working man cannot afford the cost of owning a fully automatic weapon (only automatic weapons manufactured before 1968 stayed in circulation and their price is extremely high – see the Hughes Amendment), we have only two of the three features.  The phrase “assault weapon” is a fabricated bastard concocted by the Brady Campaign to scare people.

The next part of the article is very interesting and important.

Rachel’s murder has not marred her family’s memory of that holiday afternoon. For a family of marksmen, it also has not changed their views about guns.

After months of silence, Hannah D’Avino and Peter Paradis said they feel compelled to speak publicly: They are not happy that Rachel D’Avino’s name and her memory are being used to push for more and tougher gun legislation.

Their tragedy, they say, has been hijacked for political gain, to further a message with which they disagree.

“We’re very frustrated mainly because the 26 families got lumped together. We’re 26 families made of individuals that all have different opinions,” Hannah D’Avino said. “It’s like people are speaking for me and speaking for my sister. They don’t know her and they don’t know us.”

Paradis and D’Avino note that the only firearm-related injury or death in their family happened when Rachel was killed. She joined them in target shooting and was a good shot, they said.

That’s not all they remember of her _ it is a small detail of a life remembered mostly for her short career as a behavioral analyst and her work with autistic children and their families. Rachel D’Avino carried a passionate desire to help autistic children, to improve their quality of life and their families. The family home’s solarium is filled with gifts sent by strangers: drawings, letters, jewelry from people touched by her story, and by her tragic death. The family continues to raise money in Rachel’s name for research and services for autistic children and their families.

The family has been reluctant to talk publicly, largely because of unprofessional treatment by media representatives. Days after Rachel’s death, they were inundated with requests for interviews. They were frustrated by repeated attempts by producers and reporters who hoped to land their angle of the Newtown story.

Hannah D’Avino “friended” a woman on Facebook after the woman said she was a friend of Rachel’s. That woman later turned out to be a producer asking to interview her. Another woman got past a state trooper stationed at the front of the family’s driveway, saying she was a friend of Rachel who wanted to bring a basket of packaged muffin mix to the family. Inside was a card containing a business card from a producer at CNN.

So there you have it.  The D’Avino family wants to help the families of autistic children in memory of their beloved Rachel.  The media wanted to foist their political views into the tragedy in order to score points, and CNN lied in order to gain access to the family.

It seems that the term “assault weapon” isn’t the only bastard in the story.