Home

Details

California has a ban on 30 round standard capacity magazines (which they dishonestly call "high capacity").

But, if you have a an AR15 in .50 Beowulf caliber, then that same magazine holds 10 rounds, and is a 10 round magazine.  Even if you could put 30 rounds into it in 5.56mm.  So, call it a ".50 Beowulf magazine," and it's legal.  Call it an "AR15 magazine" and it's not. Even if it's the same magazine.

If you are not a professional in this field, and pass a law, we who are professionals will find a way around it, and will.

Because fuck you, that's why.

Details
"Mr. Williamson, with all due respect, you don't appear to realize that you are not only dealing with a number of people here who are smarter than you are, but are also better educated in science than you are. It may help to keep in mind that at Vox Popoli, those who live by the rhetoric tend to die quickly and brutally by the dialectic."
That's the funniest thing I've read this week. Thanks.
I was at first interested in your site. I thought I had found the anti-Scalzi.  And in fact, I have.
That is not a compliment.

From an exchange with Vox Day (Who lists me as a writer of interest), when I criticized his fetish for Creationism.

~~~

"Mr. Williamson, with all due respect, you don't appear to realize that you are not only dealing with a number of people here who are smarter than you are, but are also better educated in science than you are. It may help to keep in mind that at Vox Popoli, those who live by the rhetoric tend to die quickly and brutally by the dialectic."

That's the funniest thing I've read this week. Thanks.

I was at first interested in your site. I thought I had found the anti-Scalzi.  And in fact, I have.

that is not a compliment.

~~~

So, first, by what metric does he assume, after one email exchange and a couple of comments that there are a "number of people" there who are smarter than me?

It's certainly not impossible, but per standardized testing, the odds are 99.8% in my favor.  That is a mathematical extraction based on my tested IQ.  So unless his blog is a haven for pure geniuses, it seems unlikely.  Nor have I seen much demonstration of any hard scientific knowledge among his supporters.  Though to be fair, I haven't read much of his blog and don't plan to.

Given that most of the interest there is in unquantifiable local social issues, devoid of cites or analysis, it's untestable, but my perception is his belief is incorrect.  There's a lot of opinion there--some little of which I concur with--but a lot of BS, including the obsession with myth (Creationism) over science.  It even repeats the "Evolution is losing support among scientists!" bleat that's been around since...Darwin.  Yet every year we have better information, better ability to define what we're looking at, and better ability to predict what we don't see.  That's called "Science."  He even cutely entitles his response to me, "rhetoric is not science."  Indeed.  His rhetoric is not science.

Second, he seems unaware that for Darwin to be challenged is a POSITIVE thing for science.  It means we've refined the theory and have improved precision.  Much like the Earth went from spherical to oblate to precisely delineated, and we are now working on equations to explain orogenous upthrust (which isn't as sexy as it sounds).

Third, it doesn't matter how smart or educated either of us is. Facts are facts.  Extrapolations are extrapolations.  And mythic fantasy is mythic fantasy, even when called "religion."  It is untestable, unprovable, and not scientific.  There's also an implied assumption that the scientists working in genetics aren't as smart as...a blogger.  Which again, is not impossible, but is irrelevant.

He knows nothing about me other than our two emails and a couple of comments.  But he knows I'm not as smart as he because I "believe" different things.  In point of fact, I believe very little.  I observe.  If there is no conclusion to be reached, I delay judgment until there is.

Fourth, it's entirely possible to disagree with the modern American left, while being just as idiotic, prejudiced and intellectually dishonest as its worst practitioners...which he ably demonstrates (forex, constantly calling Scalzi "McRapey," apparently completely missing the point of one of John's blogs that I do agree with), despite his ability to solve the softball pre-algebra question I tossed at him.  During the Spanish Civil War, the Fascists and the Communists were diametrically opposed, yet largely indistinguishable.  Or in a non-Godwin sense, pick European peasants forced to choose between Viking raiders or the Franks.

And Darwin's (or any) ideas are only "dangerous" to bleating ideologues.  Information falls across a spectrum from factual to opinion, from useful to not.  A truly smart person analyzes the content and comes to a conclusion, adapting the conclusions as needed as new facts are presented.  That, we call "Science."


 Links:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/pz-myers-throws-out-darwin.html

As I have predicted for years that they would, biologists are beginning to turn away from Darwin's dangerous idea of evolution by natural selection.  Even self-styled champions of evolution such as PZ Myers have reached the point of giving up on their erstwhile secular saint:

We aren’t using Darwin’s model anymore; he had no accurate notion of how inheritance worked, for instance — genes and alleles, the stuff of most modern theory, are not present anywhere in his works. “Darwinian” is also problematic. It does have a specific, technical meaning, but it’s often applied thoughtlessly to every process in evolution.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/mailvox-rhetoric-is-not-science.html

Besides, everyone knows Coyote and the Great Spirit created the universe.

Details

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/pennsylvania/release-detail?ReleaseID=1843

I have been asked for an opinion on the above poll, showing "90% of Americans support background checks," and how I would respond to people who cite it. It also asks what people think of armed guards in school, and how effective they think it would be.

The question shown is simplistic and without context, and is a straw man.

Would it matter? 90% of Americans used to support slavery. 90% used to support bans on "pornography" that included the Kama Sutra. It's nice that they have a poll. I have a Constitution. ;)

And what untrained amateurs think of security protocols is uninteresting to me.

Also, there ARE background checks at gun shows, so the question is irrelevant. EXACTLY THE SAME LAWS apply at a gun show as apply outside a gun show. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole." Just because a dealer sets up at an event hall, doesn't exempt him from NICS checks and Forms 4473, anymore than it exempts him from sales tax.

Speaking of which, when are we closing the "garage sale loophole" that lets people sell things without paying sales or income tax? (Trick question. Technically, you're supposed to collect and pay sales tax on garage sales in most states, and you are certainly required to either pay income tax or file to show depreciation of the used goods.) See how this works? Lie that something happens, claim said imaginary happening is a loophole, call for changes "for the chiiiiiildren!" Take a poll. Pretend it matters.

Yes, a private citizen, NOT ENGAGED IN BUSINESS can sell personal property, even a gun, without a license. This has ALWAYS been true. If you change that, then you cannot complain if at some point they start requiring official drive searches for kiddie porn before selling personal computers, or actually send agents around to collect sales tax from your garage sale. Or, they may start raiding and shutting down farms for selling "unlicensed milk." (Does that sound familar? Because it happens.) If you give the government power, they are going to take it. Once they have it, you can't complain about it, because you gave it to them.

I have made such sales myself, btw. Usually of antique Spanish or Smith & Wesson revolvers from my collection, usually logged into a book and logged back out, since I have a license to collect (which offers me some specific benefits as far as shipping and receiving).

But any FFL selling guns must do a NICS check on EVERY sale, no matter where it takes place, and there are already strict legal limits on WHERE they can conduct said sales (for example, they must be within state). And no wholesaler or manufacturer will sell to anyone who does not have an FFL, because legally they can't. That FFL is necessary to get inventory.

There is simply no possible way to operate a gun business without licenses and NICS checks without running afoul of the law, and rapidly getting noticed.

And by the way, there are ATF agents at most gun shows. Some of them are shopping for personal or duty weapons. Some are resolving legal inquiries from dealers. And some are acting in capacity as enforcement. 

As far as "guns sold on the internet," they either must go through an FFL, or be sold face to face, if private, much like they were when such ads were placed in newspapers. So the question here is: Why do you hate the internet?  Why do you hate modern communication?

Can someone make a sale to someone illicit anyway? Yes. You know what we call those people?  Criminals. And guess what?  THEY DID THAT ANYWAY, and will do it anyway. That's what it means to be a criminal.

But when they drag your ass away for selling or possessing unlicensed milk that wasn't properly pasteurized, etc, "for the children," don't expect any sympathy.  When they jail you for tax evasion over the "Garage sale loophole," no sympathy.  It's what you voted for and wanted.  

Nor can you ever complain about TSA, who checks travelers to "keep us safe" and "protect the children."  If it prevents just one bomb, won't it be worth it?

And next time, try having a clue what you're talking about before engaging in debate.

Details

I'm going to show I can create a better conspiracy then the conspiritards.

"Hey, we need you to help us crash airliners into the WTC and kill several thousand people to further our agenda."

"WTF?  Dude...is this a joke?  Go @#$^ yourself."

"Hey, we want you to help us orchestrate shooting some kindergartners to get control in place."

"What kind of #@$ing monster are you?  Seriously."

"Hey, we want to set off a couple of bombs at the Boston Marathon, so we can get the drone program and RFID in place.  If we do it right, it shouldn't hurt many people, though of course, collaterals are possible.  Just some nice loud distractions at the end.  That way, any large gathering will be a just target for drones, scans and otherwise. Overall, this will mean less real attacks.  The cost benefit is positive."

"Makes sense.  Okay, I'll help."

BANG!

"Dude!  WTF?  That actually killed and maimed a lot of people!  You said that wasn't going to happen."

"Well, it had to be big enough to get people's attention."

"That's not what I signed on for.  I'll tell..."

"Who, exactly?  Even if you managed to tie us in, you're complicit and the mob would kill you.  And you carried the bombs, so you're the logical suspect. We're all high-ranking officials with excellent cover.  Best keep your mouth shut if you know what's good for you."

"!@#$&!"

"Yeah, whatever.  Remember, we need drones, RFID and better monitoring of the internet.  Even if you blame this on the Muslims."

~~~

I don't believe it, but this one would at least be feasible.

In reality, this is going to come down to:

RIFs who have learned to scale their attacks and keep quiet about them, lest the US military show up and sodomize them with JDAMs, or some native crazy who hates something or other.  If the latter, given the target, I expect it's some anti-capitalist lefty.

  1. Privilege - Not Just A Word
  2. Observations on Being Liberal

Guns

Shirts

  • You are here:  
  • Home