Quebec: Stuck on Stupid?

Generally, I try to understand the peculiarities of other cultures and I get that firearms may scare people who learn about them from television and video games. However, this out of Quebec strike me as just plain stupid. The Canadian government already wasted over $1 billion on a registry that, allegedly, lists less than half the legal firearms in the country. Now, in a classic example of the Sunk Cost Fallacy, Quebec wants to throw good money after bad.

Update: Quebec will create its own long-gun registry.

The article includes this little gem:

Thériault was careful to add that a provincial registry wouldn’t be designed to limit hunting activities or to crack down on lawful gun owners.

Only "lawful gun owners" will register their firearms making them the only people a registry can be used against.

There have been credible allegations of corruption in the administration of the registry so maybe some Quebec politicans just want to keep the gravy train rolling. OTOH, maybe it is Global Warming causing a brain eating bacteria to proliferate in the province.

The Retard in the White House and Elsewhere

Remember when Joe Biden -- putative Vice-President of the United States -- recommended that gun owners discourage intruders by firing a shotgun in the air?

So did Jeffery Barton of Washington State but when he followed that advice, he was arrested for his trouble. At his arraignment he pleaded not guilty and raised what is now being called the "Joe Biden Defense". While that seems a little tongue-in-cheek to me, it is, in the clarity of hindsight, a predictable reaction to the utter stupidity and ignorance exhibited by Biden.

Now -- perhaps hoping not to embarrass the VP more than he does for himself -- the prosecutor is dropping the one count of illegal aiming or discharging a firearm.

New developments in 'Joe Biden defense' case

Clark County's prosecutor said Tuesday he will dismiss a firearms-related charge against a Vancouver man who said he was merely taking Vice President Joe Biden's advice on how to defend his property from car prowlers. Instead, the man will be prosecuted for obstructing a police officer.

Jeffrey C. Barton, 53, made international news when he told journalists: "I did what Joe Biden told me to do. I went outside and fired my shotgun in the air."

That is a reference to the vice president's answer to a question in February 2013 about home defense. Biden responded that Americans don't need to own semiautomatic weapons because a couple blasts from a shotgun will scare off intruders.

Of course the state being, typically, unwilling to let go of any opportunity to harass a peaceable gun owner will throw an obstruction charge against the wall.

However, the firearms charge will be replaced with a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer, Golik said.

Golik said ethical guidelines prevent him from discussing specific reasons for the new charge.

"Based on (Barton's) conduct, we are going to pursue the obstruction charge," he said.

Ethical considerations? In this case is sound more like: We don't have a real reason to put him in jail so we will fall back on the obstruction charge.

And lawyers wonder why Dante spread them out all over the Inferno. There are so many appropriate places there for them.

Kozynski on the Death Penalty

My objection to the death penalty is purely pragmatic: There is no accountability when an agent of the state kills someone in error and that is a recipe for corruption. Power corrupts the men who wield it especially when there is no personal liability for their actions.

That said, if we are going to have executions then just use a firing squad or a guillotine. Automate the process if it makes people feel better but Kozynski is right when he object to using life-saving medication to kill (PDF). That is just damned wrong.

Whatever the hopes and reasons for the switch to drugs, they proved to be misguided. Subverting medicines meant to heal the human body to the opposite purpose was an enterprise doomed to failure. Today’s case is only the latest in an unending effort to undermine and discredit this method of carrying out lawful executions. Another symptom of the problem is the decade-long inability (or perhaps unwillingness) of California state officials to come up with an execution protocol, effectively putting the state’s death chamber out of commission. See Jones v. Chappell, No. CV09-02158-CJC, slip op. at 5 n.7 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2014). Old age, not execution, is the most serious risk factor for inmates at the San Quentin death row. Then, again, you get odd cases like that of Russell Bucklew, who obtained a stay of execution on the ground that the drugs that would be used to kill him would cause a lingering, painful death. See Bucklew v. Lombardi, 134 S. Ct. 2333, 2333 (2014).

Whatever happens to Wood, the attacks will not stop and for a simple reason: The enterprise is flawed. Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and peaceful—like something any one of us might experience in our final moments. See Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1141, 1143 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in denial of certiorari) (“How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection . . . .”). But executions are, in fact, nothing like that. They are brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should it. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf.

If some states and the federal government wish to continue carrying out the death penalty, they must turn away from this misguided path and return to more primitive -- and foolproof -- methods of execution. The guillotine is probably best but seems inconsistent with our national ethos. And the electric chair, hanging and the gas chamber are each subject to occasional mishaps. The firing squad strikes me as the most promising. Eight or ten large-caliber rifle bullets fired at close range can inflict massive damage, causing instant death every time. There are plenty of people employed by the state who can pull the trigger and have the training to aim true. The weapons and ammunition are bought by the state in massive quantities for law enforcement purposes, so it would be impossible to interdict the supply. And nobody can argue that the weapons are put to a purpose for which they were not intended: firearms have no purpose other than destroying their targets. Sure, firing squads can be messy, but if we are willing to carry out executions, we should not shield ourselves from the reality that we are shedding human blood. If we, as a society, cannot stomach the splatter from an execution carried out by firing squad, then we shouldn’t be carrying out executions at all.

While I believe the state should and will prevail in this case, I don’t understand why the game is worth the candle. A tremendous number of taxpayer dollars have gone into defending a procedure that is inherently flawed and ultimately doomed to failure. If the state wishes to continue carrying out executions, it would be better to own up that using drugs is a mistake and come up with something that will work, instead.

Are Bloggers Journalists?

That really is a good question given the special protections offered journalists. In his latest column entitled Press Credentials Fred Reed takes aim at a recent and incredibly stupid decision by United States District Judge Marco A. Hernandez. In this decision Hernandez lists seven criteria he thinks define a journalist deserving of protection under the First Amendment and the shield laws:

1. Education in journalism
2. Credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity
3. Proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest
4. Keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted
5. Mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources
6. Creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others
7. Contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story.

Reed -- having actually been a journalist for decades -- neatly dissects the unbelievable ignorance Hernandez demonstrates in the above. In a blast of pure vitriolic brilliance, Fred offers as a response to Hernandez, "Vete a la chingada, cabrón. No me estés jodiendo", which he translates as, "I appreciate your point of view. I will consider it at leisure[sic]."

I am still laughing at that one.

Thugs break into cars to steal guns.

Is anyone really surprised at this?

The law makes it plain that a law-abiding citizen cannot carry a firearm in certain places and must leave it at home or in his car. Now criminal are breaking onto cars where they know there is a higher probability of a gun waiting to be stolen.

The only real surprise it it took this long for the thugs to figure it out. It's a good bet that it will take the authorities even longer to figure out what to do about it.

Thieves burglarize cars with gun-related decals

Decals aren't the only thing criminals are looking for, police said they are also going after vehicles parked at places where concealed weapons are not allowed inside like businesses or schools, places where there's a high likelihood gun owners have left their firearms in their car

Illegal to Feed the Homeless?

In truth I can understand how some people would have legitimate complaints about feeding the homeless: If you subsidize a thing you get more of a thing. Still, freedom comes with the risk that someone might do something I don't want them to do.

Cops Raid Private Charity: Feeding Homeless People is Now a Crime

Stupid Argument from the Washington Post

In an editorial tited, Congressional efforts to repeal D.C. gun laws imperil homeland security the editor asks,

Imagine parents who have lost a family member to gun violence having to allow a renter to possess firearms. No state imposes such restrictions on private landowners, so why is this a good idea in a city where motorcades of high government officials and foreign dignitaries are an almost-daily routine?

Imagine parents who lost a son to Islamic fighters in the Middle East having to rent to Muslims. Why is is a good ideas to allow Muslims into a city "...where motorcades of high government officials and foreign dignitaries are an almost-daily routine?"

ATF is Seizing Toy Guns

koinlocal6.com reports that

A local business owner is flabbergasted after a shipment of 30 toy guns for his store was confiscated by ATF agents in Tacoma.

Original report here.

Airsoft Outlet Northwest has some additional commentary here.

There may be a method to this madness. Do not forget that airsoft toys are used in force-on-force exercises which, I've been told, make the training more realistic. If true, then training with airsoft toys improves a citizen's chances of survival in certain deadly force encounters.

So which do you think the BATFEces want to go up against: A citzen with delusions of being Rambo or one with a more realistic attitude about gunfighting?

Hat tip to David Codrea

The Puritans Are at it Again

In the middle of the worst depression since the 1930's, the California Legislature has decided that cuss words are an vitally important issue.

The state Assembly passed a resolution Thursday that would establish the first week of March as "Cuss Free Week" throughout the state. If approved by the Senate next week, the measure would take effect immediately.

The resolution includes no enforcement mechanism and is simply meant to promote greater harmony and connectedness, said Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from La Canada Flintridge and co-author of the measure.

Read the rest at Fox News

After witnessing years of deficits and the massive debt load created, I concluded there is very little intelligence life in the California Legislature. None if which seems to leak into whatever the majority happens to be at any given time.

F**king Puritans.

Billy Beck, of course, has an appropiate response

That'll be the day: when I respect any resolution of civility from a goddamned felon-in-waiting.

So does Rick O'Connell (From "The Mummy"):

Evelyn: You were actually at Hamunaptra?
Rick: Yeah, I was there.
Evelyn: You swear?
Rick: Every damn day.

Killer Empowerment Zones

From a posting at Spartan Cops

Killer Empowerment Zones

“Killer Empowerment Zones”© are more commonly known as “Gun-Free” zones by the “Reality-Challenged”. The Utopian intent of course, is a delusion that the law, or warning signs at a public facility will be sufficient to protect the public. The otherwise perfectly legal concealed weapon civilians are disarmed and rendered as defenseless as everyone else. While this Utopian theory has no validated tracking history of success, it certainly has a documented record of failure. Even as we concede that the Utopians may deserve an “A” for their good intentions, they certainly have earned an “”F” as in FATAL for ACTUAL results.

KMZ: Unintended Consequences are Fatal

The consequence of disarming the law-abiding public is the creation of a zone that is perfectly designed for the health, welfare and safety of the mass murderer. He is virtually guaranteed that a law-abiding public will have no realistic ability to protect themselves or others. The active killer has been given a cart-blanche opportunity to decide who and how many die, almost as if he wrote the law supporting gun free zones himself. These zones are very attractive to him!

More Here

Killer Empowerment Zones. Great summation of the real world consequences of restricting the rights of the individual to protect himself.