Hmm... Yeah, all three pretty much

I work with all three, and yes, that's pretty much exactly what I do... Well, 'cept I've got no neckneard, just a VanDyke.... unless I get lazy for a week or two anyway.

Oh and if you get this joke, and don't have "the Brads" in your comic feed, you should.

The more music I listen to in my life

The more I realize, that no-one ever has been, or will be, as good as Thelonious Monk.


There has never been a better piano player certainly; nor a better composer of jazz music.


Why Monk isn't mentioned in the same breath as Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven, I simply do not understand.

The more you can adjust things, the more you can screw them up

Tweaking is for the experienced, for those who don't really need what is being tweaked all that much; or for those who have enough time and money on their hands to fix things (or have a professional fix things) when they inevitably screw them up.

General rule of thumb for almost everything...

The more things there are to adjust on a rig, the more things that:

1. Can be misadjusted
2. Can drift out of adjustment
3. Will go wrong

This can also be expressed as "there more there is to tweak, the more there is to fuck up".

It's not that you don't want adjustability; it's just that the more adjustable something is, the more you're going to need to adjust it... pretty much universally.

It doesn't matter what it is; guns, cars, stereo equipment, cameras, airplanes, motorcycles, bikes... anything mechanical, electrical, or in any way technical; the more there is to adjust, the more there is to screw up.

That's why stuff for amateurs usually offers limited adjustable bits, and limited ranges of adjustment; while stuff for professionals usually makes as much adjustable, with as wide a range of adjustment, as possible.

Professionals have the time, knowledge, and experience to adjust things properly, and monitor their adjustments. Amateurs don't, unless they are expert amateurs at that particular thing.

Admittedly, some expert amateurs are actually better at whatever thing they're expert at, than the professionals. Professionals often don't have the time or energy to explore the outer limits and weird capabilities or fringes of the thing they are working in, focusing mostly on their day to day work.

However, becoming an expert amateur requires even more time, effort, training, education, money, and resources than doing something professionally (and you don't generally get paid for it).

So, if you're not prepared to take the time, money, and effort to become either a professional, or an expert amateur at something, DON'T FUCK WITH IT.

Thank you, that is all.

Educating those outside the gun culture who've been defrauded

As I mentioned the other day, my post "Defending yourself, for those outside the gun culture" was a repost of something I wrote in another forum.

It received several responses, one of which was generally positive, but included these lines:

"I would hesitate to advise one to carry a gun only because many people do not fully understand the reality that if not prepared to use the weapon and possibly kill a human being, one risks having that weapon taken from then and used on them...


I am not up on current statistics but I believe from past classes that the statistics were pretty high on injuries and deaths from ones own weapon."

I wasn't going to do this, because as I said, this can be an emotional issue for many; and because of the huge infodump required.... But I really hate to see it when a fraud is unknowingly perpetuated by someone, who doesn't know any better.

To the point about injuries; actually the reference being made, is to a fraud perpetrated by gun control groups, and then repeated by a media who don't bother to verify facts, so long as the fraud fits their spin on the story.

There are two specific fraudulent claims that were frequently made by gun control advocates, and then endlessly (and mindlessly) repeated by the media, and by defrauded people who don't know better.

"You are 14 times more likely to be injured by a gun in your own home, than if you don't have one"

and

"Thousands of children are killed by guns in the home every year"

Let's talk a bit about those claims.

First of all, neither are remotely close to true, or have any basis in fact. They were essentially entirely made up on the spot by gun control advocates; and have been thoroughly and publicly disproven. Thus, most gun control organizations no longer make specific claims like that, only saying "much more likely", "many times more likely" etc...

However, media reports very frequently reference those two claims even today; as they are very easy to find in a quick google search.

The reality is very much different.

Excluding suicides, injuries or deaths among the general population from their own firearms are very rare; almost always self inflicted, almost always while abusing drugs or alcohol, and in the majority, with firearms that are possessed unlawfully;  which even then constitute a tiny fraction of a percent of all gun owners.

When taking only lawfully possessed firearms, by clean and sober people, the incident rate drops to even tinier fractions of a percent... Essentially so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant, and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.

There are perhaps a few hundred incidents a year total; the majority of which are from hunting accidents, the police (yes, the police in this country have a very poor firearms safety record), and from firearms owners who are not properly educated about safety.

Most commonly the incidents with police and with poorly educated gun owners; occur when someone pulls the trigger on a loaded gun either while holstering the gun, or with a gun they thought was unloaded, but didn't properly unload; either before cleaning the gun, or while at a range or shooting spot. Most commonly the individual shoots themself, usually in the foot, hand, or leg. Very rarely, they shoot someone else.

Incidences of criminals using the firearm of someone who was defending themselves with it, by "taking the gun away from them" are almost non-existent; again, so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.

In fact, police officers are shot with their own weapons FAR more than the general public.

Of the 200,000 or so sworn active duty law enforcement officers in the U.S (there are about 800,000 working in law enforcement in some capacity, but only about 200,000 are street cops, detectives etc...), about 40-60 are killed by gunfire in the line of duty every year (of 125-175 total annually). Of those, approximately one out of 8 is killed with their own gun.

The FBI and DOJ estimate that at least 60% of the 150,000 or so people shot annually in this country (some years as many as 200,000, some years as few as 125,000), are one criminal shooting another; and at least 95% of shootings occur during the commission of a crime.

Only about 1 in 20 shootings is accidental, or about 7500 a year (some say it is as high as 15,000 in some years); and of those, only about 1500 die (again, some say as many as 4000 in some years).

Oh and, in general, 80% or so of people shot in this country, don't die from it.

Given that there are 300 million people in this country, and about 3 million of them die every year; even including the 95% of shootings that occur during a crime, gunshot wounds don't make the top 25 causes of death. When you take into account just the accidental shootings, they don't make the top 100.

Similarly, incidents of children injuring themselves or others with firearms are incredibly rare; and almost always involve children involved in criminal activity, or parental negligence (usually due to drug or alcohol abuse, and funny enough most often in states with very restrictive gun control).

Kids in "gun friendly" states, generally don't shoot themselves or their friends; because their parents teach them properly about gun safety, and because their parents handle firearms properly.

Gun control groups post hugely inflated numbers, with no basis in fact. When they are forced to fall back to something with statistical validity, they then inflate the numbers further, by counting from birth to age 24 as "children"; when in fact nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur among young men, age 16 to 24, and nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur during criminal activity.

Funny enough, more than half of all violent crime is committed by young men, age 16 to 24 (according to the FBI and DOJ about 56%). Most drugs are dealt by young men age 16 to 24. Violent crime is a leading cause of death among young men 16 to 24 etc... etc... etc...

The problem isn't guns, it's young men, mostly those from broken homes, mostly those who come from severely economically and educationally depressed or deprived backgrounds.

Once again, and I'm sorry to be repetitive but it bears repeating; when you exclude young men age 16 to 24, and criminal activity, the incidents of children being injured by firearms falls to a near statistical invisibility.

There are about 60 million children under the age of 16 in this country. Something like 400 a year are shot accidentally by lawfully owned firearms, outside of criminal activity, and less than 1/4 of those die (it's very hard to get exact numbers because every state, and the CDC records things differently, and age and criminal breakdowns are hard to extract). That's a rate of .000006, 6/10,000ths of 1 percent, or 1 in 150,000 being shot, and 1 in 600,000 being killed.

Even if we add back in all the criminals, and the drug use, and the unlawfully owned weapons, and we include all "youths" (meaning from birth to age 24); even the New York times concedes that the number of accidental deaths by firearms is only 300 per year.

Out of the more than 100 million "youths" age 0-24 in this country, about 300 die per year through firearms accidents or negligence. That's a rate of .000003, 3/10,000ths of 1 percent, or one in 333,000.

You can say that "Oh my god thats DOUBLE the rate!!!!" which of course is what gun control advocates and the media do... but you're doubling from "almost zero" to "a little bit more, but still almost zero".

There are at least 300 million guns in this country (there are no reliable statistics, but guns pretty much last forever, and we make or import at least 10 million a year - in 2009 it was 14 million -  so most people guess that number is low); and about 50% of the households in this country have guns (some say as low as 40% some as high as 60%).

About 40% of the population of the country lives in the 11 states where there is both restrictive gun control, and comparatively little private firearms ownership: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Hawaii, and Michigan (Michigan is an odd one, since almost everyone in rural michigan has guns, and almost no-one in urban michigan does; but the population of Michigan is mostly urban).

Outside those 11 states, it's more like 75% or more of households have guns. In many states, it's pretty damn close to 100%.

Funny enough, in those states where almost everyone owns guns legally, almost no-one gets shot accidentally (or in crime for that matter. All 11 of the states with restrictive gun control have very high rates of violent crime, most of the 39 states that don't -30 or so of the 39-, have pretty low rates of violent crime).

The vast majority of incidents of people injuring themselves, or injuring children, accidentally or negligently with firearms, occur in those 11 states with restrictive gun control, or in the urban islands of the gun friendly states where lawful gun ownership is comparatively rare.

The best way to avoid these accidents though, is not to avoid firearms... frankly, in this country, you can't, and it's futile to try. By doing so, you are simply elevating the gun to an object of mystery, desire, and power (something television and movies do a pretty good job of anyway); and when your child does come across one, they're going to want to play with it.

The best way to avoid a tragedy, is to educate yourself, and your children, about firearms safety.

Even if you don't own guns, you should have a responsible gun owner you know teach your kids; or find a range or call the NRA, and they will let you know when and where a session of the award winning Eddie Eagle gun safety for kids program is being held.


The fact is, although these tragedies do happen, they are vanishingly rare.

The use of firearms to defend ones self, ones family, and ones property, is not rare at all.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive firearms uses in this country every year (the best estimate is between 150,000 and 200,000). The vast majority (between 80% and 90% any given year) do not involve firing a shot, and many don't even involve drawing a weapon. Merely showing a potential offender that you have a firearm and are prepared to use it is often sufficient.

Of course, don't count on it. If you have a gun, you must be prepared to use it... or the bad guy WILL take it away from you and use it on you, and on others.

For sources you can reference http://gunfacts.info/, "More guns, less crime" by John R. Lott, Lott and Mustards various academic works, Gary Klecks various academic works,  "Shooting Blanks" by Alan Gottleib, the CDC, DOJ, and FBI reports on causes of death, and violent crime. Most of these are available either in full or in extract form online.

Defending yourself, for those outside the gun culture

Almost all my readers are "gun people", in that they own guns already, are interested in guns, guns are a hobby and form of recreation for them etc...

However, I'm also a part of several other communities or subcultures if you will, where guns are an uncomfortable subject, or just a mystery.

For example, I teach basic self defense, to women, and to gays, for free. I fully and firmly believe, armed women don't get raped, and armed gays don't get bashed.

I have a lot of friends in what you might call "alternative sexuality" or "alternative lifestyle" communities. These folks often engage in what you might consider fairly risky behavior; in that they meet strangers in private places etc... Basically, a lot of the necessary conventions of these communities, because they require discretion, privacy, secrecy etc... are the exact things the self defense classes and books tell you NOT to do.

I used to have a lot of friends who were escorts, strippers, in porn, or some combination of all of the above (I did security for them. You make friends pretty quickly in those situation). They have all those same risks, only turned up to 11.

I'm involved in gaming, both casual and hardcore, both tabletop and video gaming; and a lot of gamers and geeks just don't know a damn thing about guns or self defense... or worse, what they "know" is dead wrong... meaning it will get them, and others, dead.

We in the gun community or the gun culture if you will, understand that there is a hell of a lot of just plain bad information out there in the non-gun world; and we should, when we can, try to help others to get GOOD information, and to learn how to defend themselves safely, and responsibly.

To that end, I'm going to repost something I wrote on a forum for one of those groups I mention above.


-----------------------


The best way to protect yourself is to avoid being in danger in the first place, absolutely; but when that plan fails, the best way to defend yourself is a weapon.

Less lethal weapons are always an option if you feel you can't carry a gun, or can't kill someone who is trying to hurt you. Stun guns and chemical irritant sprays CAN be useful and effective if used properly.

Though I have seen far too many cases where they were not effective enough, to trust them as a primary means of self defense, any advantage you can give yourself in a life or death situation, is one you should tale. Also, unfortunately, in many places, these may be your only lawful means of self defense.

If you do choose to use a contact stun gun, a taser (they are two very different things by the way, and the difference is important), or a chemical irritant; you NEED to get training in how to use them safely, and effectively; and you ABSOLUTELY must practice with them at least once.

The time to say "huh, that didn't work the way I thought it would" is in training, NOT when someone is about to rape you to death.

Now, lot of folks in this community are not comfortably with firearms, but they carry knives; and they believe they will defend themselves with a knife if the time comes.

Let me tell you right now, you want to think of a knife as your absolute last resort in a defensive situation.

Unless you are an expert martial artist, trained for years in self defense with a knife, you are unlikely to be very effective in doing so; and you are likely to hurt yourself badly if it ever happens.

Even knife experts, and I'm one of them; hurt themselves badly, when defending themselves with a knife... and I'm one of them.

I've been in a couple of knife fights. Trust me on this, you REALLY want to avoid a knife fight under any circumstances. Next time you see me, ask me to show you some of my scars.

The two things most people don't understand are:

1. It's VERY hard to defend yourself with a knife. It's pretty easy to hurt someone pretty badly, but it's very hard to STOP them from attacking you, which is your goal; and it's very easy to hurt yourself in the process. Plus in order to use a knife effectively, you have to be close enough that they can grab you, and really, you should avoid that if there's any way you can.

and

2. You are far more likely to die or be permanently disabled or disfigured by a knife wound, than by a gunshot.

That's counterintuitive, but ER statistics prove it out. You are far more likely to die from a knife wound, because you are likely to lose more blood, have a greater chance of shock, and are more likely to suffer more severe infections, and more secondary infections.

So, while I won't say knives are useless for self defense, or not to grab one if it's your only weapon (any weapon you can use, is better than no weapon at all, if you're defending your life)... don't make it your plan to defend yourself with a knife, and don't carry a knife for self defense, unless it's your only option, or it's a backup to your other self defense methods.

My personal recommendation is, if you are able to deal mentally and emotionally with the concept of killing someone (and you need to be 100% able to deal with it, otherwise you are going to be a bigger danger to yourself and others than a rapist or killer is. If you can't, stick to less lethal weapons) you should carry a firearm.

Nothing stops a rapist so well as a bullet... or five.

Again, I want to stress, you shouldn't carry a gun unless you are entirely comfortable doing so; and have accepted the idea that you may, no matter how much you dont want to, need to use the thing on another human being, and you are safe, mature, stable, and responsible enough to do so.

If you are bi-polar or depressive, and your illness is not well controlled with medication you take religiously, you probably shouldn't have a gun. If you're an addict who is not doing well in recovery, you probably shouldn't have a gun (if you are an addict who is not in recovery at all, it is illegal for you to have a gun). In general, if you're someone who has great difficulties with mental or emotional stability... you probably shouldn't have a gun.

I won't say you definitely shouldn't, because everyone is different, as are everyones individual issues... but in general, unless you are sober, and stable, you shouldn't have a gun.

Also, you shouldn't carry a gun if you are not physically safe and secure (crackhead roommate? No guns til you move, which you should do immediately), responsible and conscientious about your possessions (if you lose your purse every week... don't carry a gun), and you have received training in self defense shooting, and the legal issues surrounding armed self defense in your state.

Note, I'm not saying it should be illegal for you to own or carry a gun without training in firearms safety and the legal aspects of self defense. What I'm saying is that unless it's a life or death emergency, you shouldn't, you're an idiot if you do, and I don't want you carrying a gun around me or mine.

You should also train with your defensive firearm at least once a month; both to ensure that your skills in shooting are adequate and safe for self defense, and to ensure that the firearm is still functioning properly.

Finally, when you decide to own and carry a gun, you accept a burden to behave in a safe and responsible manner.

People who carry guns for lawful self defense, can't allow their anger, or their depression, to get the best of them. They can't get into bar fights. They can't get into domestic disturbances. They can't get drunk or high.

Carrying a gun for lawful self defense means you always need to be the better man or woman in any situation. You need to turn the other cheek, and exercise restraint and caution, even further than those who don't carry.

Now, if I haven't scared you off after all that heavy stuff, here's my offer.

I am an NRA certified firearms instructor; and have additionally been trained in firearms use and instruction by Gunsite Academy, Frontsight Academy, Massad Ayoobs Lethal Force Institute, and several other firearms training facilities. I have acted as a trainer for several law enforcement organizations, security contractors, and for private clients; for almost 15 years.

If anyone in my region, wishes to learn how to shoot a gun for the first time, wants to learn about firearms safety, want's their kids, or family to learn about firearms safety; want's advice about firearms for defending themselves, or wants to get back into shooting; I will give them free instruction, and use of my firearms and safety gear, any time I'm available.

The only thing I ask, is that if you can, you pay for the ammo. If you can't afford it, I've got a fair bit, and I'm glad to share it with you... but ammo isn't free, and these days, it isn't particularly cheap.

Just had to share this quote...

From Richard Kadreys "Sandman Slim":

"I hate Glocks. Guys who love Glocks love Corvettes. Not because it was a hot car, but because it was cool forty years ago and they once saw a picture of Steve McQueen in one. Their dad probably had a Vette when he was young, but he was never cool. But if they have a Vette, maybe they can forget the fat man who made them mow the lawn when they should have been out with their friends sneaking into R-rated movies, and who embarrassed them in front of their girlfriends. Maybe their dad was the guy driving fast and locking lips with Faye Dunaway in The Thomas Crown Affair. Maybe their dad was cool after all and maybe that made them cool, too. That’s what Glocks are. High-precision killing machines that scream “Daddy Issues.”

Note: This is coming from the mouth of a character who carries a knife, a collapsible spear/naginata type thingy, THREE single action revolvers, a 1911, and a sawed off shotgun all at the same time.

Ok, I don't hate Glocks at all, never mind for that reason (don't like how they feel in the hand, or their triggers, even when very well massaged), but I think that paragraph is just funny as hell.

Also, given the association with fat men, and corvettes, I think Kadrey is basically saying "Glocks are for douchebags".

Much as the corvette is now permanently tainted with douchebag stench from all the douchebags who bought them (these would be the douchebags who bought vets at 40... they owned Iroc Zs when they were 20...), the Glock is permanently tainted with douchebag stench from all the douchebags who bought them because of rap videos and action movies.

Though... I think there's a much stronger case to be made that the douchebag gun of the last 30 years is the Desert Eagle...

The Greatness of America

It's 2am.

I'm sitting here, in my underwear, looking out at the most beautiful snowscape, 50 miles from nowhere.

Eating leftover Sichuan chicken (extra extra hot)...

Drinking ice cold cream soda...

Watching old punk videos, streamed over the net...

This is why we win.

It didnt...

...Except to gay men who care more about how the clothes look, than the women.

An Explanation... for almost everything really...

"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."

-- T.S. Eliot

We don't go black... we try to turn on lights

We're not going black today, over SOPA or PIPA.

In case you by some miracle hadn't noticed it yet, tens of thousands of web sites around the country and around the world, are "going black" or putting up banners explaining that they are not available or there is no content today etc... In protest against the "Stop Online Privacy Act" and the "ProtectIP act", which are currently (or were recently), being promulgated in congress.

We don't have a problem with anyone who does. It's important that people understand what SOPA and PIPA are (or were), and most folks are sadly unaware of the kind of stupid and harmful things that our government does.

Google and Wikipedia are two of the most important and most used sites on the net; and by participating in this protest, they will very certainly make a lot more people aware of this issue.

But "going black" isn't what we do here.

We talk about political and social issues here; in particular about liberty and freedom. We try to inform people about the important issues, events, and principles of liberty and freedom; and then talk about them in as free and open a way as we can.

I personally think that going black would be entirely against what we are about here; and while it might help to draw more attention to the problem, it wouldn't help us inform you, or help us begin the conversation about the issue.

... and of course, you can't go to wikipedia today to find out about it...

Note: actually, you can. All other searches are redirected to a "Stop SOPA" page, but you can research SOPA all you like... but it was too smartass not to say.

So, I personally, would like to do something that is in the spirit of protesting the idiotic and harmful nature of these pieces of industry lobbying masquerading as legislation...

...And share a few things:

That's the best explanation of why the freedom to share (within fair use of course, copyrights ARE important) is important; and why legislation like PIPA and SOPA are not only stupid and harmful, but entirely antithetical to the American system of ordered liberty.

And then there's this piece by my friend (and bestselling author, buy his excellent books please) Larry Correia:

"for all of the people out there on the internet having a massive freak out about the government potentially damaging something they love… WELCOME TO THE PARTY.

You think this is something new or unusual? Nope. This is just about a topic that you happen to be familiar with. If you fall into that camp, I want you to take a deep breath, step back, and examine all of the other issues in the past that you didn’t know jack squat about, but your knee jerk reaction was to say “there’s a problem, the governement has to do something!” Well guess what? The crap the federal government usually comes up with to fix these problems is similar to SOPA. In other words, the legislation addresses a perceived problem by instituting a bunch of stupid overregulation and taking away someone’s freedom.

You think people need access to affordable medical care and shouldn’t be denied coverage? Well, you got used and we got the bloated ridiculous mess that is Obamacare. You saw a news report about how big business defrauded people and said congress should do something? Well, everyone in the business world got screwed because of Enron by completely useless new arbitrary crap laws, and a few years later we got into an even bigger financial crisis which the arbitrary crap laws we spent billions conforming to did nothing to prevent. No, because that financial crisis was caused by people saying that there was this huge problem that needed to be fixed, so more people who couldn’t afford to pay mortgages could still buy houses, and the government simply had to do something to fix this problem!

Any crisis… Any problem… You ask the feds to fix it, you get this kind of answer. Almost never do the laws fix the actual problem. Instead the government gets bigger and gains a few more powers and it doesn’t fix the issue. When the problem gets bigger, then the government gets bigger and gains a few more powers that actually make the problem worse. Oh look! Despite all of these laws the problem has gotten even bigger? Whatever should we do? Why, I know! Let’s pass an even bigger law that takes away more individual freedom and gives the government more control!
Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Any topic, any situation, any problem.

They address it, you lose freedom and they gain more control. Some of you are only offended today because this particular law hurts something you enjoy. The rest of the time? Screw it. You can’t be bothered to pay attention. Or worse, people like me who are up in arms over an issue are just cranks or anti-government crackpots."

I was going to write something roughly similar to this, but Larry beat me to it... and I'd rather share what he wrote, because it's good, and because I can.

At least for now...

Missed another milestone

Huh... looks like sometime in November I passed the 2.5 million unique visitors, and 3.5 million page views.

I've kinda stopped paying attention to the numbers.

I'm also coming up on my 7th anniversary as a blogger in about a month.

So... what would you Irish that up with?

Everclear, or 151?

7 years on... "Why I carry and gun", and "Superiority Complex"

Just  about 7 years ago, I wrote a pair of posts, about why I carry a gun, and how I feel about carrying; titled "why I carry a gun" and "Superiority Complex".

I thought this would be a good time to republish those posts. Unfortunately, in the great Haloscan purge of 2010 I lost most of my sites comments before 2009 (Haloscan comments prior to some point in 2009 were unreadable by the import engines of other commenting systems. Thousands of bloggers lost their comments); so you can't read the literally hundreds of comments, both good and idiotic, on these posts.

I'm republishing these now; first because Kevin reminded me of the posts by linking to "superiority complex" in a recent link chain (to a post from 2010 actually); but also because the world has changed a lot since 2005.

I think it would be interesting to see how comments run these days.

So, here we go (note, I updated the dates, fixed typos etc...):

Why I Carry A Gun

My favorite anecdote about Bill Jordan goes a little something like this:

Now Ol' Bill, he was a direct man, and a big one at that, so most of the folks he put away were willing to chalk it up to "just business", and leave it at that.

Well Bill heard this feller was raisin' a stink about comin' round to get some back at him for, but he didn't think too much of it.

A few days later, Bills sittin' out there on his porch, and he's got his trademark combat magnum in his lap. His neighbor walks by and says to bill "See ya got yer pistol there Bill, you 'spectin trouble?", So says Bill "Nope, if I was expeting trouble, I'd have my rifle"

I carry a gun whenever it is legal, and not impolite for me to do so (I respect peoples property rights). When I am entering the home or place of business of someone I don't know, I will inform them I am armed, and ask them if they would prefer I not carry a gun while there.

It's just polite.

A lot of people ask me "Why do you carry a gun, do you expect trouble?"

No, I carry a gun not because I expect trouble, but because I can...

If I was expecting trouble I'd carry a 12ga.

The practice of carrying a weapon is a clear assertion that I am a man. By that I'm not talking about macho bullshit; By saying I am a man, I mean that I am an adult, responsible for my actions, and willing to accept the consequences of them.

When you carry a gun you have in your hands (or on your hip), the ability to end any mans life. This is a massive responsibility, second only to that of raising children.

Many people are uncomfortable with that responsiblity. They believe that they can't be trusted with it, and by extension, neither can anyone else. They fall back on saying "the police" or "the government" should take care of that. Someone with special training, and the blessings of the state should be responsible, but not me, or you, or anyone else.

I can think of no clearer way of saying "I am immature, and not to be trusted".

When I carry a gun, I accept the fact that I may kill someone. I don't ever plan on doing it, I hope it doesn't happen, but it may. I am prepared for this possiblity, and I accept the consequences should it happen.

A few years ago, I broke up with a girlfriend over this. She asked me what I would do to someone if they tried to rape her. I told her flat out that I would kill him. No hesitation there at all. She told me later that from that moment, she was afraid of me.

I asked her what she would do if someone tried to rape her. She said she wouldnt fight. "What if you had a gun, would you shoot the guy to stop it", no she wouldnt do that. "ok what if I was there and I shot him, would that be OK", no of course not. Finally I asked "What if a cop came along, and he shot the guy would that be ok" well of course, he's a cop.

That attitude frankly baffles, and disgusts me, yet there are so many people who hold it. They feel morally superior because they would never "sink to that level".

Personally I would consider that pretty clear evidence of moral bankruptcy.

The same applies to people who would never fight in a war, but are OK with soldiers and cops defending their rights. Oh, they'll protest, and march in the streets, but actually doing anything? No they're all above that and have disdain for everyone else who isn't, calling us savages, and rednecks, and barbarians etc...

I carry a gun because it is my right, and because I am responsible enough to excercise it. I feel nothing but pity or contempt for those who are not.

And the second post:

Superiority Complex 

In my essay "Why I Carry a Gun", I explicitly state some thing that either piss people off, make them uncomfortable, or provoke irrational emotional reactions.

To wit:

When you carry a gun you have in your hands (or on your hip), the ability to end any mans life. This is a massive responsibility, second only to that of raising children.

...

When I carry a gun, I accept the fact that I may kill someone. I don't ever plan on doing it, I hope it doesn't happen, but it may. I am prepared for this possiblity, and I accept the consequences should it happen

...

I carry a gun because it is my right, and because I am responsible enough to excercise it. I feel nothing but pity or contempt for those who are not.

Responses from the left have come in many varieties, most often I get the arguments "Why do you need a gun", "Wouldnt the world be a better place without guns", and "arent you worried you'll shoot someone". Further, many insults are directed my way, calling me immature, accusing me of needing a gun as a phallic replacement, saying that I was clearly psychotic, and asking how I can possibly have such a superior attitude because of something that is so obviously wrong (carrying a gun that is).

The basic thread running through all of this, is that there must be some special jsutification for having, owning, or carrying a gun.

Here's the thing, pro-gun and anti-gun people are arguing from a different set of first principles. There can be no useful debate betwen two people with different first principles, except on those principles themselves.

More in the extended entry...


ProGun people believe that the gun is a useful tool with no inherent motive, and no inherehnt dangers, excepting misuse. Additionally, guns are examples of elegance in mechanical engineering, which many take pleasure in. Finally they are a source of enjoyment through the practice of the skill of marksmanship. But guns are jsut inanimate object; dangerous if muisused, but so are knives, screwdrivers, chainsaws, cars.. well really just about anything. A gun is an inanimate object, just like any other two pound chunk of metal.

Anti-gun people operate from a completely different principle. They believe guns are inherently wrong. They equate guns with assault and murder, and conflate a causal relationship. They believe that if anyone would have a gun, they must have a valid justification for it, and that they (the anti-gun people) must judge the validity of this justification. They believe that the desire to carry a gun is in iteslf a pathology, and therefore no-one who wishes to carry a gun should be trusted to do so.

Personally I think this position is ridiculous. It's an inanimate object. It has not intent. It has no will. It has no magical properties. Picking up a gun does not turn you into Rambo, or Gary Gilmore.

I have asked a girlfriend to pick up a gun and hand it to me from my work bench, and they actually shrunk back from it, as if it would hurt them.

I carry a gun because I can, and because it is a useful tool. I never explicitly stated that a gun is a useful tool in my original essay, because anyone who isn't an idiot, or blinded by their emotional reaction to an inanimate object should be able to see that a gun is useful. I also carry a pocket knife, a flashlight, and a multitool, because I can, and because they are useful tools.

Does carrying a gun make me feel better? More secure? Absolutely. I know that no matter who might try to harm me or those around me, I have an advantage in stopping them. I know that I won't necessarily have to rely on the police, or the people around me to help. I know that by merely having a gun I am more likely to be able to stop an assault from happening because most defensive uses of guns do not involve any shots being fired.

Am I supposed to feel bad because carrying a gun makes me feel better?

Do I take pleasure in the fact that I can kill someone with it? Of course not. I can almost as easily kill someone with my bare hands, or a knife, or even easier with my car.

Only those that impute some mystical power to guns could ever make these arguments without realizing how ridiculous they are.

What I do appreciate, is that carrying a gun is a greater responsibility than not carrying one. I have a greater capacity for harm with less effort, (though no greater responsiblity to not harm), and should act accordingly. THis is no different than a large and strong man appreciating that he must be more careful than a small man in how he moves, to avoid breaking things around him.

Does this somehow make me feel superior to everyone around me? No of course not, but I do feel superior to those who believe they are not responsible enough to carry a gun, because I AM superior to them. I have control of myself, and I do not impute irrational properties to inanimate objects. I dont think that merely posessing an object will make me a killer.

Damn right I'm superior to those who do not have the moral courage to simply own an inanimate object.

Damn right I am superior to those who feel that since they aren't responsible, neither is anyone else.

Damn right I am superior to those who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety.

I am superior to them, because I am not dependent on them, or anyone else, to defend myself; and yes, I feel contempt for those people who do not have the will to do so. It's not about ability, its about will.

Saying you don't have the physical ability to defend yourself is nothing but an excuse, because weapons are the great equalizer. What you really don't have is the will necessary. You are saying that if someone tries to kill you, or rape you, will do nothing to stop them but flail your arms and scream. Worse, you are not only saying it isn't your responsibility to stop them, but that it IS everyone elses responsiblity.

Yes, I have contempt for you, and I pity you, because no matter what age you are, you have wilfully reduced yourself to no more than a helpless child.

Just in case there was any confusion, I feel exactly the same way I did seven years ago.

I have no problem with you if you don't want to carry a gun. Lots of people don't want to, for any number of reasons.

But if you believe that you are not responsible enough to carry a gun, what you are saying to me is "I am irresponsible, and cannot be trusted".

If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted with a car, or a knife, or gasoline, or household cleaners... You certainly can't be trusted around my kids.

You are saying that the only thing preventing you from doing wrong, is that you don't have the tools to do so; and I don't want you around me.

All that said, you and I don't have a problem with each other. You live your way and I'll live mine... just stay away from me, and my kids.

If you think that because you are not responsible enough, no-one is; you are simply dead wrong. You may not be responsible enough, but plenty of us are.

Perhaps you can learn for yourself that you are wrong.

Talk to a responsible gun owner. Go out shooting with them. It's fun, and maybe you'll learn something. Guns aren't magic, they're just inanimate objects. Two pounds of metal, with no will, and no intent. They're tools; and just like any other tools, they can be used or misused.

If, after learning a little bit about guns and safety, and gun ownership, you still decide that you are not personally responsible enough... I respect your decision, and your self awareness; but you should understand that just because you are not mature or responsible enough for gun ownership, doesn't mean I am not.

If you believe that YOU personally are responsible enough, and police and the military are responsible enough, but the rest of the law abiding citizens of this country are not...

...Well then there's no help for you.

Haven't really been able to write for over a week now

Yeah, I wrote a post on Tuesday, but it was one of those "I'm still alive, and really frustrated" things...

I'm on the horns of a dilemma...

There's a couple of things I really want to write, but also don't want to write... and they're not letting anything else come out until I finally figure out what I'm going to write... or decide not to write at all.

The first thing is about California and politics. The second is about the upcoming election, and our "choice" of candidates.

Those are fairly predictable topics for this moment. What I'm going to write isn't going to be predictable, and will probably piss people off...

On the other hand, I'm not sure I even want to get into it.

I'm so worn out on politics right now... hell, I have been since what, 2008?

When was it that I wrote about being tired of making the same arguments over and over again, and already having said it all?

The other thing though...

The other thing is what's really freezing me up.

My brother died a year ago this last Monday...

Sunday, January 9th, 2011, my not quite 32 old brother died; of a combination of a severely weakened immune system due to cancer, an untreated septic infection, and the effects of both prescription and illicit drugs.

I really don't know what to write about that.

I really don't know HOW to write about that.

I NEED to say something, and I can't; and I can't seem to say anything else until I do.

... and I... just... can't.

Not now.

Maybe later.

Finally recovered (mostly)

I've been sick since the week before Christmas. Upper respiratory infection and sinus. It's had me flat on my ass most of that time.

About half way through, I decided I was better, and resumed a few days of regular activity; which, of course, made me even sicker.

I'm FINALLY, mostly, recovered.

In the meantime, I missed a review appointment with the Idaho department of Labor, which caused me to miss a week of unemployment. Yay. Got that sorted out yesterday; and because I couldn't get it sorted til yesterday I actually miss two weeks (a little under $700). Not good.

No, they don't pay back benefits either (some states do), they just tack the extra two weeks onto the end of my eligibility.

Yay.

Oh and the IDOL are actually great, and this wasn't their fault in any way.

Because I was sick, I missed the notice that they sent me saying I needed to go to the review (apparently they sent it the wednesday or thursday before christmas. I was already sick when it got in the Monday after christmas, and didn't notice it). I got the second notice, saying my unemployment was suspended, last Friday, after close of business. It was automatic based on my not showing up, or responding to their initial notice.

First thing Monday I called them up and we were able to do the review over the phone; it was only because of the holidays messing with mail delivery timelines etc... that things got so screwed up. They were extremely helpful, courteous and professional; and they view their job as helping me return to gainful employment, not to try to catch me cheating.

Meanwhile, theres a $700 hole in my already limited budget for the month.

Again, yay.

It's 51 frikken degrees out...

In January.

In North Frikken Idaho.

And it's GOING to be 57 before the day is done.

IN JANUARY IN NORTH IDAHO...

What the hell?

So, you know what happens...

When you're sick, and you feel a lot better, so for a couple days you resume your normal activities... only you weren't actually better?

Of course you do, because, like me, most of my readers do the same thing.

You get a HELL of a lot sicker than you were before.

That's what I've been for the last week. A hell of a lot sicker than I was the week before last.

Still am actually, probably will be for another few days.

Blargh.

On the desk right now...

Glock: The Rise of Americas Gun by Paul Barrett

I met Mr. Barrett earlier this year, at the Gunblogger Rendezvous, and had a great time taling about guns with him, and shooting with him.

Ill be reviewing the book next week. I got this review sample for free from the publisher; so, if I like the book (and I think I will, based on the discussions I had with the author, and on the earlier reviews I've read - not coincidentally all by friends in the gunblogger community) I'll be buying my own copy, and passing this one on to a reader.

The title of the graph alone explains a hell of a lot...

In case you don't understand my comment in the title, let me explain.

First, let's get the surface argument out of the way.

It's rather obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of economics (sadly, that excludes much of the general population)... or even basic math; that for a given level of productivity, someone with twice as many days off, is producing far less value for their employers.

That IS the point of employing someone after all... Obtaining economic value from them. While leftists seem to believe that business should exist solely to provide employment to people who want it; thankfully businesses still exist to make money (at least in the U.S. ... for now anyway).

While some may argue that more time off makes employees more productive, that is only true to a certain point (though that point is different for everyone). Once you pass that point, that employees gross productivity is reduced.

Frankly, I'm pretty sure that point is something lower than 35 days, for almost everyone, in almost every job.

Now, this is just me... but I don't see how I could take that much time off.

At my last job I got 25 days a year paid time off, plus 11 company holidays (and if a holiday fell on a non-work day, we got a compensatory time off day either the next week, or as a floating holiday). Every year, I hit my maximum carryover of five days. So, I actually had a total of 41 paid weekdays off per year, and of course, 104 weekend days a year; for a total of 145 days off. 365 days a year, 145 days off... That's one out of every 2 and a half days.

I just couldn't take that many days. In November and December, I had to take extra WEEKS off, just to get down to the five day carryover point. That is not enhancing productivity.

But the bigger point is one of basic principle, illustrated by the graphs title...

No-one is ENTITLED to ANYTHING in the course of voluntary employment, including wages; and at the most fundamental live, including you job itself. Your job isn't "yours", and you have no right or title to it.

Paid time off (other than government mandated paid time off) isn't an entitlement, it is a benefit provided by employers, as an incentive to attract and retain employees; and to improve productivity (a happy and well rested employee is far more productive).

Health insurance, is also not an entitlement. It is a benefit provided to attract and retain employees, and to improve productivity.

In fact, just about everything employees receive from their employers (excepting wages and soul crushing stress) are benefits; most of which are of benefit to your employer as well (as it is very expensive to find and train new employees, and unhappy or sick employees are not productive).

You are not ENTITLED to wages either. Both wages and benefits, are consideration provided in exchange for your labor and business benefit in the course of your employment.

Oh and by the way, you DO have an employment contract, even if it's not written down, even if you're an at will temporary employee etc... The requirements of your employment are the consideration you provide, and the wages and benefits are the consideration they provide, in fair exchange. That's the definition of a contract.

Once you have provided your consideration according to the conditions and requirements of your employment, you are not ENTITLED to your wages and benefits; they are YOURS, and your employer is contractually required to give them to you.

The difference?

Wages and benefits are part of a contractual exchange of consideration. You provide your labor and business value to your employer, your employer provides you with wages and benefits.

An entitlement, is something which you have been granted by "authority", as yours to claim by right and without consideration required in exchange.

Remember your Heinlein: TANSTAAFL... There aint no such thing as a free lunch.

By granting you something (if you take it anyway), "authority" is exerting control over you in many ways. There are ALWAYS conditions, and just like anything else authority grants you, what they grant, they can take away whenever they want; for any reason, or no reason at all.

Personally, I'll take property rights and consideration, over being "given" an "entitlement" any time.

For this day, is born to you a Saviour

"And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.

This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem: because he was of the house and family of David, to be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.

And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people:

For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying:

Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will." 

--Luke 2:1-2:14

Sing Glory to god in the highest:

and come all ye faithful:

For christ is born.

It's not about elites or idiots

Over the past few years, there has been a constant drumbeat from "progressives" (and even some non-lefties) that conservative anti-elitism is effectively "anti-science", "anti-education", "pro-stupidity" etc...

This is partially in response to the fact that many conservatives use the terms "elitist" or "the elite" (in the political and social context, not in the context of achievement... though that distinction is lost on leftists) as a pejorative.

Their basic comment comes down to "Well, if you don't want intelligent, well educated people running things who would you rather run them, idiots?"

Thus, completely missing the point.

Conservatives and libertarians aren't against smart well educated people; in fact many of us ARE smart, well educated people.

...We're against people who want to run things.

This idea is so utterly foreign to the leftist mind, that they literally cannot conceive it, or believe it.

You see, to a conservative or libertarian, it's inherently obvious... axiomatic even:

The world runs better, when everyone runs their own lives, and their own business, with as little interference as possible; save that which is absolutely necessary for the common good, or to prevent harm to others.

No government official or lawmaker can know more about your life, or your business, than you do; therefore, they cannot run your life or you business as well as you can.

No matter how smart, or well educated they may be, and no matter how many of them there are; they will always be working with less information then you have. Their information will always be less current. They will always have less experience in dealing with the conditions unique to your life and your business.

Since no-one can run your life as well as you can; no-one should.

Note: Economists call the idea that if you’re just “smart enough” “well educated enough” etc… you can make everything run right, the “perfect information fallacy”. If you could have perfect information (that is all information about all conditions and factors that could possibly effect the outcome of a decision) and perfect reason (that is, the ability to analyze all factors correctly at all times), then you could make perfect decisions. However, it is impossible to have perfect information in a complex system (never mind perfect reason) thus all decisions will necessarily be imperfect. This is the primary reason why communism or socialism… or in fact any kind of “managed economy” could never possibly work on a large scale; even if every person participating in that economy were a perfect communist, acting only for the benefit of the collective.

To a leftist, that is simply ridiculous... Impossible even. Someone has to be running things. It simply cannot be any other way.

You have to understand, leftists fundamentally and fully believe, that nothing (or at least nothing good) can possibly happen, without "someone running things".  No matter how "free" or "unregulated" something may appear to be, in reality, there is always someone behind it, really in control, and making sure it goes the way they want it to; favoring some parties and punishing others; exploiting some for the benefit of others.

Note: Conversely, this also means that whenever anything happens, it's because of the person in charge. Everything good that happens is to their credit, and everything bad that happpens is their fault. 

It's called the "daddy" philosophy of government.

As with all leftist ideas, the basic principle of the daddy government is based on what children learn during kindergarten. All money, power, control, and guidance comes from "the people in charge", like your daddy, or your teachers.

Daddy has authority, and money. From that money, he gives you your food, housing, education, medical care etc... With that authority, he sets rules, rewards you with things when you do well at what he says you should do well at; and punishes you for doing badly, for doing things he doesn't want you to do, or for not doing the things he thinks you should do.

When you need something, daddy makes sure you get it. When you want something, you ask daddy, and if he thinks you should have it, he gives it to you.

Daddy enforces "fairness". Daddy makes sure you share, and play well with others. Daddy protects you from the bad people hurting you, or taking advantage of you. When things are bad, daddy will make them all better.

I should note, some people prefer to call this the "mommy" philosophy of government... which may be closer to appropriate, given most leftists have no idea what a father is , or what they are good for anyway.

When you're five years old, daddy controls the entire world; and there's nothing daddy can't do.

Leftists have never really advanced in economic, social, or moral maturity beyond that point. They believe that the world continues to work that way as you grow up; only instead of daddy, the one in charge is "government".

In fact, they not only believe it's the way it should work, they believe it simply IS the way it works, and there can be no other possible way.

Since there is no other possible way, and someone has to be controlling things; it's absolutely critical that we get the smartest, best educated, most "elite" people to be in charge. If you're against that, it must be because you want someone in charge who is going to favor you.

Or rather, because they have such a low opinion of the common man, they believe that the people themselves are idiots, being deceived by the people who secretly want to control everything. The people who want to control everything have convinced the "common man" of the lie of the "free market", and of "equal opportunity" and "the American dream". They're all just lies the secret controllers tell the "common man", so that the controllers can rig things to favor themselves, and their cronies. Those people are anti-elitist, anti education, pro-stupidity, and want idiots to run things, because they can secretly control the idiots for their own benefit.

Note the assumption there that anyone who is smart and well educated MUST know that the leftists are right; therefore anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid, or evil.

This isn't some far out conspiracy theory by the way; this is exactly what leftists think was behind the Bush presidency. Not only do they freely and publicly admit it, they write books and make movies about it.

They completely miss the point.

They don't understand that conservatives and libertarians have a completely different idea about what government is, and what it should do.

They don't understand...

We don't want idiots running things....

We don't want ANYONE running things.

Medium Raw

"I've heard it said that for a proper steak, one should heat a cast iron skillet red hot, hold it at an angle, drop the steak into it, and catch it with a plate as it exits the skillet."

Ok, I'm going to have to go off on a little rant here.

Rare steak, is undercooked steak.

If you like rare stake, that's fine. Taste is personal and subjective after all. But you have to know, when you eat a rare steak, you are eating a tougher, less flavorful, piece of meat than one which has been cooked properly.

The entire idea that extra rare or rare meat is superior to properly cooked meat in any way is provably false.

Rare meat, is unquestionably tougher, and less flavorful; with a chewier, more rubbery, more fibrous texture and mouth feel; than properly cooked meat.

note: This leaves aside preparations that mechanically or chemically alter the meat, without cooking it; like pounding meat paper thin for carpaccio, bathing it in acid for ceviche or curing it with salt or smoke as in charcuterie. 

Why?

Four things:

1. Fat
2. Connective tissue and cell wall integrity
3. Fluid migration and concentration
4. Thermal conversion of proteins and sugars

The proper temperature to cook any meat (presuming it is cut and served as a steak, filet, cutlet, or dry roast); for maximum flavor and tenderness, is ALWAYS medium rare.

Let me repeat, and rephrase slightly...

Any meat, if properly cut to be cooked and served on it's own as a piece of meat on the plate (a steak, filet, cutlet, or slice of a roast; as opposed to ground, cubed, stir fried, pulled, chopped etc...), and cooked using a high temperature dry cooking method (dry roasted, broiled, seared, sauteed, grilled, or fried); will be both most flavorful, and most tender, when cooked to medium rare.

I rephrased it, because sometimes you don't want the most tender or most flavorful piece of meat they can get. In particular, you might want meat to be firmer, or crispier; or you may want it to take on the flavor of a sauce etc...

"Meat" is what we call the fluid filled fibrous muscle tissue of animals. The fibers of meat are constructed from relatively strong, relatively thick walled cells (which themselves are mostly proteins), bound together in bundles with weaker proteins, fats, and a mixture of relatively weaker, and relatively very strong connective tissues (also mostly proteins).

Proteins are entangled together in tightly twisted and curled shapes, in what scientists call "folding". To my mind folded proteins bound up together look like a tangled mat of hair, but that's a messy analogy.

When we cook food, we're doing is "de-naturing" the proteins with heat (denaturing can also be done with acids, strong bases, and organic solvents like alcohol). De-naturing partially breaks proteins down, causing them to "unfold", losing their secondary and tertiary structure; but leaving their peptide bonds intact (vs. enzymatic breakdown, which dissolves peptide bonds).

This almost always makes something made from proteins mechanically weaker, but also more solid, firmer, and less flexible. That's why eggs get hard when they're boiled, and meat gets firm when it is cooked; and when cooked too much, either become crumbly.

Basically, the less flexible something is in general, the easier it is to break into pieces with mechanical force. Flexible stuff bends and stretches, inflexible stuff doesn't.

With meat in particular, you get a fairly complex reaction to heat. When you denature the proteins in muscle fibers, they lose flexibility, and become firmer and tougher (until they lose structural integrity entirely that is, far beyond well done stage in dry cooking). However, muscle fibers are bound up together into bundles with binding proteins and connective tissues; and when those proteins denature, the bundles loosen up, allowing the fibers, and fiber bundles, to move relative to each other.

Medium rare is defined rather simply as the temperature at which muscle fibers, connective tissues, and fats; break down and weaken enough (through rendering, fluid migration, and protein denaturation) to allow them to move relative to each other; causing interstitial spaces in the fibrous muscle tissue to widen and fill with fluid, which in turn allows the fibers of the meat to move relative to each other easier.

Medium rare is a different temperature, for every different type of meat; because meats all have slightly different composition and structure. In addition to different protein composition; different meats have different water content, different fat content and composition, and different connective tissue content and composition; all of which respond to heat at different rates and temperatures.

Medium rare for beef isn't quite the same as for venison. Duck isn't quite the same as goose, which isn't quite the same as chicken; and none of them are the same as beef.

Ok, so why is medium rare meat both more tender, and more flavorful, than rare? After all, if overcooking makes meat tough and flavorless, shouldn't cooking the meat less, make the meat more tender?

Up to a point, yes; but in rare meat, the processes of protein denaturing, fat rendering, and fluid migration, haven't yet worked enough, to allow the meat to become tender and more flavorful.

At medium rare temperatures, the relatively weak connective tissues and binding proteins between muscle fibers soften enough to allow the fibers to move relative to each other; making the meat more tender.

At medium rare temperatures, the relatively strong connective tissues between hard fats and muscle fibers, and between different muscles in the same cut; also break down a very small amount (it takes a very long time for them to break down completely; thus, stewing and barbecuing), allowing those hard fats and connective tissues to be more easily separated from the muscle.

At medium rare temperatures, soft fats liquify; becoming part of the flavorful fluids in the interstitial spaces, and lubricating the fibers of the muscle making them slide past each other. At temperatures below medium rare, they do not.

At medium rare temperatures, hard fats (which are actually fats bound up with connective tissue) start to soften enough to loosen their bonds with muscle fibers and other connective tissues, making it easier to separate.

At medium rare temperatures, after the soft fats have liquified and connective tissues have weakened; the cell walls in the muscle fibers also weaken enough, that the fluid pressure inside them becomes high enough to force some of the fluid out of the cells, and into the interstitial spaces, between the fibers. This forces the fibers apart further, widening the interstitial spaces making more room for more fluid, and loosens the structure of the meat even more.

That is what makes for tender, juicy meat.

At temperatures below medium rare, none of these happen; or at least not enough. At temperatures above medium rare, it all happens too much.

In case you missed it, that means meat is both more flavorful, and more tender, at medium rare; than it is at rare, or at any temperature above medium rare.

Conveniently, with most common meat cooking methods (hard searing, sauteeing, high temperature roasting, broiling, or grilling), on most cuts of meat; medium rare is also about the lowest temperature you can get a well cut piece of meat that has been properly prepared, to get protein and sugar conversion on the outside surface and outer 1/16"; creating flavorful compounds, and a pleasing mouth feel.

Oh and by well cut, I mean properly cut for the muscle, properly trimmed of fat and connective tissue (which varies for the dish, and for the cooking method); and the right thickness (which again, varies for the meat, the muscle, and the cooking method).

Generally speaking, for the type of cooking and the type of dishes we're talking about, this means 1/2"-3/4" thick for chicken breast, 3/4" to 1-1/4" for pork chops and tenderloin, and 1-1/4" to 1-3/4" thick for beef steaks.

Much thicker and you can't get relatively even doneness across the whole piece of meat, without using two cooking methods (sous vide and searing, or searing and low/medium temperature roasting for example). Any thinner, and it's hard to get the outside of the meat browned, without overcooking the interior.

Also, again with most cooking methods on most cuts of meat; reaching medium rare temperatures drives off enough moisture from the meat that flavors are concentrated and intensified, but the tissues still have enough integrity to hold the majority of the flavorful fluids and liquified fats in. Any lower, and this intensification doesn't happen; any higher and the tissues lose too much integrity, and give up too much fluid, making the meat drier and tougher.

To simplify:

Any temperature lower than medium rare, fats remain solid, connective tissues and muscle fibers remain tightly bound together, and muscle tissues do not break down to allow fluid into the interstitial spaces. Any higher and you are driving off more moisture than you need to; therefore making the meat tougher, and drier.

Now that doesn't mean you can't cook a piece of meat to a higher or lower degree of doneness; it just means it won't be as flavorful or as tender.

For example, in the case of chicken, even without regard to the food safety issue; most Americans don't like the texture of it when served medium rare. Because chicken is already a very tender meat to begin with (because it has a larger relative volume of liquid, and both weaker connective tissue (the fibers of the muscles are looser), and weaker muscle fibers compared to beef; it's perceived by most Americans as TOO soft, or mushy, when served medium rare. For the most part, we would rather have a firmer, slightly less flavorful piece of meat, than a "mushy" one.

Most Americans would prefer their chicken served medium well (completely white, completely clear juices, very firm texture, slightly dry); than have even the slightest bit of pinkness to their chicken, never mind medium rare. I personally prefer my chicken medium (slightly pink meat, with slightly pink juices, firm but tender texture, and very juicy).

On the matter of pork... well that's a real tragedy.

The majority of Americans for the last 100 years have grown up falsely believing that pork had to be cooked to medium well, or well done; to avoid foodborne illness.

In fact, up until recently, USDA guidelines for cooking pork recommended it be cooked to an internal temperature of between 160 and 165.

This produced several generations of people who believed they didn't like pork; simply because they were being served dry, stringy, tough, overcooked garbage.

Thankfully, even the USDA has finally recognized they were wrong, and now recommend that pork be cooked to an internal temperature of 145 degrees (still higher than it needs to be, but a lot better).

That said, most people are still not willing to accept medium rare pork (130 to 135 degrees); again, because it's texture is "too soft" or mushy (and for the same reasons as with chicken).

If you asked most Americans what they would prefer their pork to be done too, they'd probably say "no pink", which is medium well or well done. However, if you did a blind taste test, most would actually prefer medium (135-140); because it is both tender and juicy, while being firm enough to not be "mushy".

Now, if you like your steak done to higher than medium rare... Frankly, it's either because you don't like beef very much; or it's because no-one has ever served you a steak that had been properly cut, and properly cooked.

If you like steak well done, you were probably served a lot of bad beef or badly cooked beef as a child, and learned that it didn't taste as bad or it wasn't as chewy or rubbery, if it was cooked more (and probably served with a sauce). Now, as an adult, the "fact" that beef that isn't overcooked tastes bad is imprinted on your brain.

Bad quality beef, badly cut, and improperly cooked for the cut, WILL taste better if done to medium well or well... Frankly it can be completely inedible otherwise; whereas if you cook it to well done, you've driven off all the liquid fat and all the moisture, and all that's left is bland fiber to act as a delivery mechanism for salt and steak sauce (and in some cuts, particularly if left untrimmed; the fat that's left is super crispy, and very tasty, like a beefy potatochip... what you like there is the crispy fat, not the overcooked meat).

Unfortunately, poorly cut, poorly trimmed, and improperly cooked steaks are pretty much all you'll get at most places that don't specialize in steak (and in most home kitchens, and at most home barbecues).

As to poorly cut and poorly trimmed, there's two reasons for that. First, because they just don't know any better; and second, particular to restaurants, it's because not properly cutting and trimming their steaks lets them claim what would be a 10oz steak if properly cut and trimmed, is a 12oz steak.

As to improperly cooked... well, most people just have no idea how to cook a steak; or what rare, medium rare, medium, and medium well actually ARE (everyone knows well done).

I confess, often at restaurants I don't know (or ones I know can't properly cut, trim, or cook a steak), I will order my steaks medium rather than medium rare.

I do this because if a steak is poorly cut, or if it's not trimmed properly before cooking; cooking it to medium will mask some of the problem.

Also, because most cooks have no idea how to properly cook a steak, and pay at best minimal attention to each individual steak being cooked (they've got a line of orders as long as your arm waiting); you have a slightly better chance of them not screwing up your steak too badly, if you order medium.

Why?

Because it's in the middle. If they screw up to one side or the other, the steak isn't likely to be inedible; and if they overcook it too badly, they'll make you another one.

Usually, it's easier to tell when something is overcooked rather than undercooked; and because they are always under time pressure and cost pressure, most GOOD cooks are going to err on the side of underdone rather than overdone. An underdone steak takes less time, and you can always re-fire it if you need to. If you over cook a steak, you have to throw it out and make a whole new one, taking both more time, and more product.

Of course, there's another risk to ordering medium, which I'm going to talk about in a minute...

Now, if you like a rare steak, or extra-rare steak, why is that?

For one thing, it's probably not true; because you've probably never had an actual rare steak.

First, in many states it's actually a health code violation to serve a rare steak. If you order rare, and they cook it to the minimum health code standard, what you'll actually get is something on the low side of medium rare.

Second, even where it's not illegal, most places don't serve a truly rare steak, because they literally can't cook one.

Most places that aren't steak specialists cut their steaks too thin to be served at much less than medium rare (because thinner steaks cook faster, and because they look like "more" meat on the plate for a given weight of steak). Unless you cut your steaks to well over an inch thick, it's very difficult to get a steak to "look done" on the outside, before its cooked to above true rare temperatures.

To get a steak thinner than 1" to rare at all (never mind it being a matter of skill), while still looking nicely browned on the outside (or with good grill marks), you need to have a special high output searing burner, and get heavy pan (a standard thin steel or aluminum sautee pan or skillet won't do it. You need heavy thick steel or cast iron skillet) literally smoking hot (about 500 degrees); or use a special high temperature grill (over 700 degrees). Most restaurants that aren't steak specialists, don't have either; and steak specialists don't cut their steaks thinner than 1".

Without that special equipment, a thin cut steak will still be a sickly grey color when it reaches rare temps internally.

Third, again, because most people have no idea how to properly cook a steak, and because most places that aren't steak specialists cut their steaks too thin, and because most places don't have the right equipment; most of the time if you ask for medium rare, you actually get medium.

A medium rare steak, is unquestionably better than a medium steak (most of the time).

Oh and all of those things I mentioned above apply to home cooks as well, only more so.

So most people who think they like rare steak, actually like medium rare steak.

There are a few out there who like their steaks "Pittsburgh rare", "Chicago style", or "black and blue"; who really do prefer rare steak... but not many.

The other risk I mentioned in ordering medium, is actually because of that issue specifically.

If a cook knows what they are doing cooking a steak, but they aren't in an actual steak specialty place, they will often deliberately cook a steak a half a degree of doneness above what you order.

They do this because they know, if they give most people what they ASKED for (and think they want), it will often as not be sent back for a re-fire as underdone.

Because people are so used to steaks cut too thin, and cooked improperly; they internalize what is actually medium as "medium rare", what is actually medium-well as "medium" and so forth.

Most people who order a rare steak, if they actually got one, wouldn't eat it.

Blech...

So, as is not all that unusual for me, I haven't slept properly in days.

Unfortunately, I've also been on the edge of being sick the entire time.

Not any more.

This morning I managed to sleep for about two hours (from 8:30 to 10:30), and woke up full blown sick; fever and all, with the added bonus of my eyes being all burny and swollen, and glued shut with gunk.

Yay!

I've been laid up in bed all day, and probably will be laid up the next couple.

At least maybe I'll get some damn sleep.

It's not exactly flying cars but...

Sometimes we forget how amazing the world we live in today is; and frankly, for all that sucks about life (and god knows, there's plenty of that to obsess over). just how great it is to be an American today.

This Louis C.K. video (or similar vids from Adam Carolla and Patton Oswalt) has been linked so much it's beyond viral and into the cliche zone (I would insert the ironic trademark symbol here, but that would be even more cliche)... but the reason it's become cliche, it's because it's so completely and obviously true:

There was a great commercial back in 2000 (for IBM actually), narrated by the incredible voice of Avery Brooks (a.k.a. Hawk from Spenser for Hire, and Captain Sisko from DS9 ) where he says "where are the flying cars. I was promised flying cars":

That commercial is so popular, when I typed in the name "Avery Brooks" into my youtube search box, the very first thing the auto-complete came up with was "Avery Brooks flying cars".

God knows, I'm a geek, a futurist of sorts... hell, I'm even, literally, a rocket scientist (well... an airplane and rocket engineer. I have a degree in aerospace engineering) by education; so yeah, I've quoted that commercial about a billion times.

Anyway, the whole thing above is about the expectations we set for ourselves 40 and 50 years ago. Where we thought we would be, and how we would be doing things... how much we thought the world would have changed.

We thought that by 2000 we'd be the Jetsons. Instead, it's now almost 2012, and in a lot of ways, things haven't really changed.

Oh that isn't to say I'm discounting the many fundamental and revolutionary changes that have occurred in society, and in technology in that time... but life today would be MOSTLY recognizable to someone from 1962.

Mostly...

It's actually pretty amazing to see what we got right, what we got wrong... but more interesting to me, is the things we never even thought of; and how those have changed our lives, and the world, in ways we never could have predicted.

Forty five years ago in "Star Trek"; Gene Roddenberry looked into a world 300 years in the future, and he saw interstellar travel, and a post scarcity society (with instantaneous rearranging of bulk matter into whatever you want, no substance is rare or scarce, except those few we cannot manipulate; and with near limitless energy... the only scarcity is on the periphery of civilization)... but computers still took up rooms, and we all still accessed big central mainframes by remote links from essentialy dumb terminals and i/o devices.

He reasonably accurately predicted cell phones and pervasive communications technologies; but completely missed mobile computing, pervasive computing, and mobile data networks.

The most amazing thing is though, in America, even the periphery has access to the comforts and conveniences that our technological society has afforded us.

Two years ago, my wife and I decided to move someplace, and live full time, where we would want to vacation. Someplace beautiful, quiet, peaceful... someplace away from everything. We chose to move to, EXTREMELY rural, Bonner County, in north Idaho.

This is where we live:

You might note, there isn't any urbanization anywhere near the middle of that picture. I live on the shore of that big lake, in the middle of those big woods, in the middle of those big mountains (in between the Selkirk and Cabinet ranges of the Rockies), in the middle of... nowhere.

The nearest city of more than 100,000 people (Spokane, WA) is about 65 miles away. That picture represents about 100 miles square, bounded at the top by the Canadian border, at the bottom by Coeur D'Alene, on the west by Spokane, and on the east by Libby, Montana.

Although about 750,000 people live in the area shown on this map (which, given that's 10,000 square miles is actually almost nothing. It's 75 people per square mile; about half the average population density of the earth, and about 10% less than the U.S. average) about 675,000 of them live in that bottom corner, between Spokane and Coeur D'Alene.

From the Bonner county line, just north of Athol Idaho, to the Canadian border, and in between those two dark lines representing the WA and MT state borders; is 3300 square miles (about 70-75 miles high depending on where you are, and exactly 45 miles wide). That area has a total population of less than 50,000; almost all of whom live in the dozen or so small towns (the largest is 7,000, most are under 500) and unincorporated townships (including us) within 5 miles of the two US highways (us95 and us2) that run north/south, and roughly east/west.

There are more remote, and more sparsely populated areas in the lower 48 of course; but not many. We are very definitely "away from it all", "in gods country" etc... We are Rural with a capitol R.

I'm not saying it was a hardship, by any means. In fact, I think it's among the best decisions we'ver ever made, and I honestly believe it has saved my life. It simply means we had to give up, or accept lesser quality or variety of; many of the luxuries and conveniences we had become accustomed to in the modern American Urban Island.

One of those compromises, was in communications.

Internet access is much more difficult and expensive here than it was in Scottsdale; and smart phones, less useful; because you don't have the pervasive high speed networking you do in the urban island, and because connectivity in general is spotty in the region (both because of the lack of sites, and because of the terrain; which is pretty rugged once you get off the main road).

When we moved up here we were both on AT&T (with iPhones), and we had to change to Verizon; because although AT&T offers service in region, that service was (and still is) poor, with extremely iffy coverage.

Of course, the fact that in a community 50 miles from an interstate highway, you could get both wireless voice, and data service, AT ALL, is an amazing thing; we've grown pretty spoiled and lazy and expect everything everywhere... but again, that's Louis C.K.s rant above.

Also, it turns out that moving to Verizon was great; because we moved on to the Android platform, which we much prefer to the iPhone (for many reasons, as I've gone into many times here before).

At any rate, when we moved here we switched to Verizon.

When we switched, they had good voice coverage but marginal data coverage and speed. However, within a few months they had upgraded the 3g coverage and speed in our area, such that our smart phones were once again the useful little limpets we had become addicted to living in the metroplex.

Our primary internet access was (and still is) a different story however.

Where we live, in an unincorporated area a few miles south of the county seat (Sandpoint, population about 7,000) there actually is some DSL and cablemodem service; but it doesn't extend as far south as we are. Our options were dialup, satellite (completely unacceptable), and microwave (expensive, but high bandwidth and low latency).

We chose to go with microwave; and for the most part we've been happy with it. The kicker is, the cost: We pay $180 a month for a business class 5Mbit synchronous connection, two static IPs, and two VOIP lines.

That's a lot.

Most people in this country pay $50 or less for their internet access (admittedly, slower than us. The average DSL speed is 512k and the average cablemodem is 1.5Mbit; but also the low end service rates are usually $30 or $40 a month); and in most major urban areas in this country, you can get a 10Mbit or even 20Mbit connection at home with your cable company, for $49 to $79 a month.

We could be paying a lot less for non-business class service; but that would be at 512k bandwidth, no VOIP capability, and no quality of service guarantee. With the business class service, what I'm really paying for is the guarantee that I'll get the bandwidth and the latency I've been paying for (or I don't pay).

I need that guarantee, to run my business, and to be able to work from home for my corporate masters; as I did for most of the last two years.

It's also why we won't be changing any times soon; even though it is so expensive. No other service locally, can give us the guarantee that we're going to get the bandwidth, latency, or uptime that we need.

We looked at the possibility of using the Verizon 3g service as our primary internet; but the combination of limited bandwidth, monthly data caps, and no quality of service made that impractical and a poor value for us.

But this post is about how much we have, even though we ARE so rural; not what we don't have.

As of this morning, what we have, is 5 to 12 megabit 4g wireless service.

A few months back Mel and I upgraded our 18 month old Droid Xs, to Droid Bionics, with 4g capability. I also got a 4g MiFi router for when I travel (it looked like I was going to be doing a lot of travel at the time... I probably will be again too).

They've been great, but we only had 3g up til today; with a theoretical bandwidth of about 2Mbit, and realistically a couple hundred Kbit of actual bandwidth (it's not nothing sure; but it's not really enough for everything you might want to do).

I did a speed test from my phone earlier... 8Mbit a second.

In Sagle Idaho, the middle of nowhere, I get 8Mbps... Enough to live stream HDTV, or download a full DVD... on my PHONE.

It's not flying cars, but it's something.

Improperly prohibited from exercising my rights, and from conducting my business

I operate a small, independent gunsmithing shop. I am also a firearms instructor. I write a gun blog, and run a gun forum. I have written for many other gun web sites. Firearms are a huge part of my life every day. They're a big part of my work, a big part of my play, just a big part of me.

A couple months back, in preparation for opening up Crispin Arms, I applied for my 01, 06, and 07 FFLs; to become a dealer in and manufacturer of, firearms other than destructive devices, and ammunition for firearms other than destructive devices (I'll be applying to be an SOT for Class III items after the FFL comes through).

That's the basic FFL status required to build, sell, and repair firearms and ammunition; and it's about $400 in fees (non refundable fees by the way).

The Class III fees work out to about $1000 to start (on top of the other fees); and as a low volume dealer, about $500 a year after that(under $500k gross they cut the $1k fee in half); but I won't be paying those for a few more months.

Just after I announced Crispin Arms, I tried to buy a new firearm, and I was denied on my NICS check.

This has happened before, as my father is a convicted felon with the same name as me; and I was able to correct it with a phone call each time; so I wasn't worried. I figured I'd have it sorted in a few days.

Coincidentally, the next day, I got a letter from the ATF (the ATF doesn't handle NICS, the FBI does) saying that I was denied in the standard NICS check they run on FFL applicants; and that I would need to reapply after appealing my denial and correcting any condition which caused it (oh and they were keeping my fees).

This time I made my phone call to the NICS bureau, and they told me I'd need to go through the written process; they couldn't clear up the problem over the phone (or of course, tell me what the problem was).

Thankfully, they've set up a web page to submit the form now, so you can submit the forms directly, and not have to go get your forms certified by a local law enforcement official then mail them off into the bowels of the federal beast (you still need to do that if they need your prints to verify your identity. In this case they didn't).

Ok, so I sent in my appeal form and letter, which I will copy (redacted) here:

Sirs,

I am not a prohibited person, but was improperly denied permission to proceed with a firearms transfer on a NICS check, transaction id number XXXXXXX.

I am a natural born U.S. citizen. I have never been dishonorably discharged from the military; indicted, charged, or convicted, of any offense classified as a felony; or involving substance abuse, or domestic violence, or punishable by more than one year in prison. I have never  been committed, or judged mentally ill, or incompetent. I am not a fugitive from justice. I am not an addict or illegal user of controlled substances.

I am a concealed weapons permit holder in ID, UT, and AZ (licensing me to carry concealed weapons in 38 states). I also undergo full background checks several times annually as part of my employment; most recently eight weeks ago.

When I was denied, I paid a professional service to conduct a full background check; including a full court records search, federally and for all my previous states of residence. I also had my local sheriff  (Bonner county Idaho) conduct a criminal background, and "wants and warrants" check. I found no information to cause me to be denied.

I can think of three possible reasons for having been denied:

1. Prior to 1993 I used my mothers maiden name, Dinsmore. My SSN XXX-XX-XXX was issued under Dinsmore, but has been corrected to Byrne (I included it on the form 4473). Since 1993 I have had serious problems with multiple incidents of identity theft, under both names.

2. My father, Christopher Byrne III, is a convicted felon. I have been denied before because of this, several times over the past 15 years; but each time I have been able to resolve the problem over the phone.

3. My wife and I have been involved in a custody case; during which her ex-husband has committed fraud and perjury; and filed false reports of child neglect, abuse, and kidnapping against us (we were fully cleared). I have never been served with a restraining order, nor to my knowledge has one ever been issued against me; however he (or someone involved with him) may have done so fraudulently.

Thank you,

Christopher J. Byrne IV

A few days later, I received a letter from the FBI; with the reason for my denial, the record identifiers associated with the denial (3 of them); and the process for appealing my denial further, or for correcting the records which caused my denial, at which time I can re-apply.

The reason...

According to the FBI, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is reporting me to them as a fugitive from justice!

Oh... It gets better...

They are, in theory, reporting me as a fugitive, over three unpaid civil traffic violations, from 1999.

Not even misdemeanors, civil traffic violations.... or rather, failure to appear citations, on bench warrants, issued for not paying the fines on those civil traffic violations.

Now the thing is, I knew about all of that. I have attempted to resolve this several times over the past twelve years, and it's caused me no end of trouble.

The most irritating part of that is, the fines aren't even valid. They are for unpaid violations which occurred while I wasn't even in the state; and then all the fines, fees, hearings, orders, court costs etc.... that piled on because I was never notified of these fines, for these traffic violations I didn't commit.

It made the state of Arizona repeatedly suspend and/or cancel my drivers license for example, because every 6 months Masachusetts would report that I had a Massachusetts license that was suspended.

I ended up having to go to court over this several times, and have spent thousands of dollars fixing it; but I thought that I finally had it fixed. My driving record is now clean and clear; and I haven't had a problem with my Idaho drivers license at all.

Apparently, I was wrong.

You see, Massachusetts has stopped screwing with my drivers license; but now they're screwing with my livelihood directly... but not intentionally because...

According to MASSACHUSETTS, they are NOT reporting me as a fugitive!

I contacted the the state DOJ, the three courts associated with the records, and the Massachusetts state police the day I got the letter from the FBI. According to every law enforcement agency and relevant court in MA, I am not a fugitive.

In fact, according to all their computer systems, searching by name and by SSN; I don't even have any current, outstanding, active indictments, charges, warrants, orders, or fines. That's why I came up clear on the criminal background check I had done in MA after I was denied.

The three courts in question did have paper records of the original issues from 12 years ago; but they were all in the "dead" files. The only thing in the active computer records was a pointer under the case record number where to find the record.

So, obviously, I'm not a fugitive from justice. I am not a criminal, I haven't been charged or convicted of anything; and I've passed a couple dozen criminal background checks (including a top secret security clearance renewal) since 1999.

In fact, after I talked with Massachusetts, I went back to the FBI and the ATF; and both acknowledged that I am not a prohibited person under the law; only that I need to correct an improperly categorized record.

Seriously, why in the hell does the FBI have me listed as a fugitive?

In 2001, after 2 years of not paying the fines associated with these civil infractions (at which time I lived in Ireland by the way), three different courts in Massachusetts, issued three bench warrants. Then after 90 days, those courts cited me for failure to appear on the bench warrants.

Oh... It gets better...

Any lawyers reading this, or anyone who has dealt with warrants, or fugitive retrieval, or is a cop... I'm sure you're all scratching your heads right now, because this shouldn't be happening.

Now technically, there is a legal definition of "fugitive from justice". The federal fugitive database (part of the NCIC) is only supposed to accept a report of you as a fugitive if you meet that definition, which boils down to:

1. If you are actively fleeing a felony trial, indictment, charge, prosecution, warrant, or arrest (some states handle things a bit differently from others, thus the laundry list).
   
   
2. If you are actively fleeing from criminal trial, indictment, charge, etc... (as above) on certain categories of misdemeanor (mostly domestic violence, mental health, drugs, alcohol, and financial fraud stuff).
   
   
3. If you have escaped or absconded from or failed to report for parole, probation, incarceration, or other judicially ordered custody, detention, or supervision (including non-custodial detention like house arrest)
   
   
4. If you are CURRENTLY in violation of an ACTIVE court order requiring your presence at a certain time or date (summons, subpoena to appear, material witness order etc...).

Moving out of a jurisdiction is not the same as fleeing by the way. Fleeing prosecution or arrest is a crime in and of itself, and requires intent, and deliberate action to avoid.

At this point I feel it's important to note, a failure to appear citation on a 12 year old bench warrant for an unpaid civil fine is not any of those things.

Interstate non-felony warrants are only supposed to be active for 24 months (technically it's a "reasonable time"; but that is conventionally presumed to be within the statute of limitations or maximum term of imprisonment for the offense in question; which for a misdemeanor is presumed to be 24 months), unless there is an outstanding active indictment, or the warrants are reissued; or there is specific cause to believe the offender fled the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution (leaving the jurisdiction lawfully is not fleeing the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution).

I have never been indicted or charged with a crime (other than failure to appear), and these warrants have never been reissued.

Since none of those things apply, every law enforcement agency in the country OUTSIDE of Massachusetts considers me to have a clean and clear criminal record. I've had my local sheriff do a wants and warrants check on me, and nothing shows up, even from Massachusetts. As far as he's concerned I'm clear.

Not only that, but because the bench warrants are on civil fines and failure to appear for a civil hearing, even in Massachusetts I would not be subject to criminal detention on warrant service. Technically the failure to apear is a criminal offense, so I could be arrested (optionally at the law enforcement agencies discretion); but on arrest I would be booked, criminally cited for failure to appear, and released on either a payment of the citation ($500 fine plus $80 in fees) or ROR with a promise to appear (at the discretion of the duty magistrate); and a new summons for another hearing date (I verified this with the MA state police).

Basically, it's only slightly more serious than a glorified speeding ticket; and as I said, even the Massachusetts state police doesn't list me as having any active warrants.

But it gets better...

There's three quirks of Massachusetts law that make this so screwed up:

1. Massachusetts law makes no distinction between felonies and misdemeanors; and therefore there is no difference between a felony warrant and a misdemeanor warrant.
   
   
2. Bench warrants in Massachusetts never expire (even for misdemeanors and civil infractions); the warrant must be discharged, or a judge has to vacate it. In many states, non-felony bench warrants expire after 2 or 3 years, and need to be reissued to remain active.
   
   
3. In 2010, Massachusetts changed their criminal records privacy regulations and reporting policies, in response to some MA supreme court decisions from 2004-2009. As a result of these changes, they do not include detailed offense or charge information (or even the date of offense, or the date of the warrant) in their reporting to other organizations or agencies, except under certain conditions. They require a court order; a specific, signed and approved record request by an authorized individual or agency; or a certified request in person, or with notarized and LEO agency signed off proof of identity, of the individual whose record it is (or their legal guardian, spouse, child, or next of kin). Without such a request, the record has no detail; only that it exists, the type of record (only 10 types: criminal charge, criminal indictment, criminal conviction, criminal commitment, criminal warrant, custodial order, probation order, parole order, medical/psychiatric order, or order of protection)  and a CJIS record number (not even a case number; though the court, year, and case number, are actually embedded in the CJIS number). 

As the fedgov doesn't consider a non-felony warrant active after 24 months unless the warrant is reissued, this still shouldn't be an issue. It should have been reported in 2001, and by 2003 the warrant would have been classified as inactive, and not popped up in the system (and again, most misdemeanors, are not disabling, and no civil infraction is disabling).

And from 2003-2010 that was the case. I hadn't been denied on a NICS check in years; and as I said, I have always been able to correct the problem over the phone.

But, because Massachusetts doesn't report any distinction between felony and misdemeanor, or any charge or offense date, or even a date of warrant or date of offense; any warrant reported from Massachusetts is counted as if it was an active felony warrant, by the FBI system (because it may be, and they have to treat every warrant as if it were, since they don't know any better).

But it gets better...

A few years ago, Massachusetts basically went broke (or rather, they had to admit they were broker than they could easily cook the books to cover); and they went through a desperate revenue drive. During this drive, they resurrected all the old fines and fees, all the old child support and uncollectable back taxes, all the old summons and old bench warrants etc... they could find; basically to maximize the fines and fees they could collect.

At the same time, the state was centralizing and computerizing their court records, warrant records etc... into something they call the "Massachusetts Criminal Justice Information System", or CJIS (most states have built a CJIS at this point, in order to exchange information with the FBI, NCIC, Homeland Security etc... Many got funding from the fedgov to do so).

The CJIS processed years of back warrants and fines as a result of this funding drive; and they now automatically report all "active" records to the FBI databases every 180 days. Since in MA a bench warrant never expires, they consider it an active warrant.

It was the CJIS that improperly reported me to the FBI as a fugitive, with three active warrants.

Their system makes no distinction between a 12 year old bench warrant for a civil fine, and a felony fugitive warrant; and because their system makes no distinction, when they report it to the FBI, the NICS makes no distinction.

From 2003 to 2010 this wasn't an issue; because the warrants aged out of the federal system. Now that Massachusetts is re-reporting them every six months though; they appear in the FBI automated system to be active, valid, current, felony fugitive warrants (though a 90 second look from a human being will show that is incorrect).

The NICS is supposed to have a records of all ACTIVE warrants, indictments, convictions, orders of commitment and protection, and active pending charges only; along with the charges and offense dates associated with any such records. Part of the NICS is correct for me: it doesn't show any active felony or misdemeanor arrest warrants, charges, or indictments etc... But because Massachusetts reports a failure to appear bench warrant on a civil traffic violation the same way it reports a felony murder warrant; the NICs can't tell that I'm not on the damn 10 most wanted list.

Now, if you do a wants and warrants or criminal record check on me in any state INCLUDING Massachusetts, I come up clean. I've never been charged with, or convicted of, anything more serious than a traffic violation. I've passed multiple criminal background checks for employment purposes, I have multiple CCW permits, I've been buying and selling firearms for years...

I am NOT a prohibited person. During this process, the FBI has acknowledged that I am not a prohibited person. The ATF has acknowledged that I am not a prohibited person. However because one state is reporting me as a fugitive in their systems, they cannot simply correct the record and process my paperwork.

Oh, they could; but unless I go through "the process", they won't.

But it gets better...

At this point, I can either get Massachusetts to correct their record and re-apply, or I can go through the secondary appeal process with the NICS bureau.

I called the Massachusetts CJIS and they said that they can't correct the records without a court order. Their position is, as far as they're concerned the records are correct. I have an undischarged bench warrant, that has not been vacated, and there is no such thing as a felony or misdemeanor warrant in Massachusetts; so they can't exactly report a difference between the two. It's not their fault the FBI interprets them as they do.

Because MA is so screwed up, so desperate for money, and because they recently changed the way they report warrants; I can't be an FFL until I fix their BS.

Said BS is spread across three different courts, in three different cities by the way...

...and here's the crowning glory...

As I mentioned above, I didn't actually commit these violations. I was never cited, given a ticket, or given a summons. I wasn't even in the state when they happened, nor was I in the state when the bench warrants were issued, or when the failure to appear cites were issued.

In fact, I wasn't even in the country when the warrants and cites were issued; and I certainly wasn't served with anything.

If I get in front of a judge, with a lawyer, and they actually decide to listen and not just rubber stamp the states fines and fees (usually they don't listen, no matter what your proof is); then all this should just be dismissed immediately.

Of course, they'd still make me pay all the "costs" and "fees", including a fee just to have a hearing instead of them rubberstamping the fine. That "fee" by the way, is as much as the fine for the violation, PLUS the court costs and fees; and for some things there's even a bond that you have to put up, and that you forfeit if you lose.

Yes, the ACLU is actually suing Massachusetts over this practice by the way; as it is rather clearly a denial of due process. Unfortunately, a denial that many states have emulated, as they try to resolve their own budget issues, and overcrowded courts.

But it gets better...

Because they are bench warrants, with a failure to appear cite; I can't resolve the issue from home, unless a judge specifically decides I can have a lawyer act for me in absentia. Which means I need to pay a lawyer to go to court for me, ask the judge to allow him to appear for me in absentia, and hope the judge agrees (they usually don't).

I've been through this before by the way, on the bogus suspended license issue. It cost me $2500 in fines and fees, and another $3500 in legal fees, but I was finally able to get a lawyer to act for me.

If not, I'll have to go to Massachusetts, be arrested in three different jurisdictions, be processed in three different jurisdictions, pay three citation fines and fees ($1740 worth), get three new summons for a date some time in the future (usually 30-90 days; but almost certainly on different days) and go home; then 30-90 days later come back for the hearings, just so I can have the judge vacate the warrants.

Oh and of course, I have to pay the court costs, fees, fines etc to have the warrants vacated, no matter what. Then I have to go through the second hearing on the fines and fees; which,  if I am lucky, they will have right then; but most likely they won't, because the attorney representing the agency which issued the fine wont be there, with their records, and another hearing will be set for another 30-90 days after that.

In the best possible case, I can be arrested and processed in one jurisdiction the day before they are holding traffic hearings, then come back the next day and ask to have my hearing that day at the convenience of the court; wait all day to see if they hear me; get heard, and have the warrants vacated, then ask to be heard on the fines that day, or the next morning, or the next day they are holding traffic hearings.

Then I would repeat that two more times over the course of two or three weeks (since each one would take at least two days, maybe three, even if the judge did decide to expedite the hearings; and the courts may have conflicting schedules), hoping the judges all agree to hear me on a walk in, and then agree to hear the fine the same day or the next day.

And, as I said above; even if I can get them to do that, they're still going to charge me costs and fees at least equal to what the fines were anyway.

Frankly, I just don't have that money. Not even close to it.

Ok... so as I said above, I can appeal for a supplementary hearing from the NICS bureau, get them to purge that record from the NICS database "permanently",  add a note to my record, and give me a unique ID number to keep me from being denied again because of it.

If I go that route, because there is a "valid" record being reported by a state, and the state won't correct it; I have to pay for a federal investigation, then pay for a federal hearing, get that hearing, argue my case that the MA records should be purged as non-disabling (as they clearly are not), and have the presiding official decide that is what they should do.

Oh and the time to do that is anywhere from 9 months to 2 years by the way; and thousands of dollars

Yeah... I don't have that money either; or that time.

Oh and if I go that way, and MA changes how they report the records at any time, I'll have to go through the whole thing all over again...

So, to Massachusetts it is.

For now, a lawyer friend of the family (my attorney in Massachusetts recently retired) is looking into trying to get all this sorted for me remotely, and for as little money as possible. Otherwise, it could be six months or more before I get my FFL.

Now, let's be clear; both the FBI and the ATF acknowledge that I am not a prohibited person; that this is just a paperwork problem, and that I am legal to own and possess firearms. I'm legal to obtain a firearm through a private intrastate transfer.

I'm even legal to repair and customize firearms, under someone else's FFL, because you don't have to actually permanently transfer a firearm to an FFL or gunsmith who is repairing or servicing it (including modifications, but not "remanufacturing" or manufacturing a new firearm). I have a partnership arrangement with a local FFL until my own FFL comes through; and I am never transferred a firearm to perform gunsmithing work on it. The FFL receives the firearm for repair or service, and writes it into their bound book as such. I take the firearm offsite for repair or service without transfer, which is allowed, under the auspices of the FFL holder. When I'm done, the FFL writes the firearm back out to the original owner, without a permanent transfer occurring (I simply cannot manufacture a new firearm, until my FFL comes through. I can assemble an AR from already manufactured components, but I can't make a new custom 1911).

And yes, I have confirmed all that with the local ATF inspector; it was necessary for my deal with the local FFL.

...But they won't fix the NICS without going through the official process; and because the NICS is "the system" for an FFL to obtain clearance to transfer a firearm, even though I am not a prohibited person, no FFL can transfer a firearm to me right now, and I can't be granted my FFL.

You might have noticed, the whole thing is pretty much arbitrary and capricious, from start to finish.

I have been improperly denied the exercise of my constitutionally guaranteed rights. Rights which the supreme court acknowledges pre-exist our nation and our constitution.

I have the right to obtain a firearm for any lawful purpose. That right is independent of our constitution, and our government; and is supposed to be legally protected by both. However, because of a paperwork issue, which everyone acknowledges is just that, a paperwork issue, not an actual condition of disability or prohibition; I am prevented from acquiring a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

This, is why background checks are always going to be a problematic issue with gun rights. The idea of a background check to prevent prohibited persons from having firearms transferred to them is OK; but what happens when the background check is wrong?

Is it ever acceptable to deny someone the legitimate and lawful exercise of their rights, simply because others may be prohibited? Or because of a computer error? Or because of a dispute between the way one agency keeps records, and another agency interprets them?

Those who strongly defend free speech will say "Of course not", when they're talking about speech...

Funny enough though... most of those same folks change their tune when we're talking about guns...