Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Thursday, 22 June 2017

An Umbrella as a Self-Defense Tool ?

Filed under: Preparedness, Resistance, Self-Defense, Technology — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:07 AM (05:07)

Have you ever considered using a collapsible umbrella as an improvised weapon self-defense tool ?

No? (I’ll admit I never have, either.)

See the embedded clip below —

Even better — The Unbreakable® Umbrella !

Yes, I want one, but the 150-300 price tag is a bit off-putting for “just” an umbrella.


Advertisements

Sunday, 3 January 2016

17th Century “Assault Weapons”

Filed under: Principles, Resistance, Science, Self-Defense, Technology — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:18 AM (11:18)

First, the very term “assault weapon”[1] is a nonsensical phrase intended to cause confusion amongst the members of the public who aren’t familiar with firearms, specifically to incite fear of said firearms amongst those same people[2].

With that out of the way, let’s talk about the inane notion that “the Founders didn’t forsee today’s weapons such as the AK-47 or AR-15 — thus the Second Amendment only applies to single-shot muskets and flintlocks.”[3]

The fact remains that the Founders were familiar with multiple-shot firearms, as such had been developed in Europe over a century before the Revolution:

For starters, there’s the Kalthoff repeater.

Kalthoff repeating rifle c 1650

Kalthoff-type flintlock rifle (1600s) at the Livrustkammaren (Photo from Wikipedia)

The Kalthoff repeater was reportedly used in the Siege of Copenhagen (1659)[4] and the Scanian War (1675-1679) between Denmark and Sweden[5]. That’s 132 and 116 years, respectively, before the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

The Kalthoff never saw widespread use because it was expensive to manufacture, maintain and repair, thus only the wealthy could afford to obtain them. Still, it was a start. The “standard issue” magazine for the Kalthoff appears to have been six shots, while some models may have gone as high as thirty shots. If today’s hoplophobes and victim disarmers had been around then, the Kalthoff would have them soiling their drawers like semi-automatic copies of the AR-15 and AK-47 do today.

Next comes the Cookson Volitional Flintlock Repeater, first made in 1750 in the UK (41 years before the Second Amendment was ratified).

Cookson Volitional Flintlock Repeater

Cookson Volitional Flintlock Repeater at the National Firearms Museum (Photo from the National Firearms Museum)

The Cookson apparently used the Lorenzoni System (first developed in 1680111 years before the Second Amendment was ratified) as its internal mechanism. As with the Kalthoff, the Cookson appears to have been expensive to build and operate, hence it was relegated to a historical footnote instead of taking the world by storm.

While the Founders had heard of the concept of multiple-shot firearms, it wasn’t until the idea of interchangeable parts came about as a practical form of technology — in the 1820s[6] — that they became a real possibility.

So when practical, portable laser and railgun weapons become a realistic possibility[7], we’ll hear and read it all over again from the hoplophbes and victim disarmers — “The Founders never foresaw these!”

I think just as Tench Coxe wanted private civilians to have ready access to and proficiency with the military weapons of the day[8], today he’d be talking about the AR-15 / M-16 / M-4 and AK-47 / AK-74 series of weapons, and in a hundred or so years, he would be talking about lasers and railguns.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. See the Wikipedia page for “assault weapon” [quotation marks added by myself – MWB] versus the Wikipedia page for assault rifle
  2. “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
    Violence Policy Center: Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, by Josh Sugarmann
  3. District of Columbia v. Heller backs me up here –

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
    District of Columbia v. Heller via the Legal Information Institute [LII] at Cornell University Law School

  4. Wikipedia page for the assault / siege of Copenhagen
  5. Wikipedia page for the Scanian War
  6. Wikipedia page for interchangeable parts
  7. When I took Intro to Lasers (PHOT 2005) at CNM in 2008, the Nd-YAG laser we used would put out 3 W of continuous-wave (CW) power, and could go up to about 20 W when in Q-switching mode (pulsed beam). That unit (built in the 1980s) had a power supply and cooling pump about the size of WWII-type footlocker and required 2.5 gallons of water per minute for cooling purposes to be pumped through the laser head. Fast-forward to today . . .
    1. Wicked Lasers advertises its “Spyder 3 Arctic” as being about the size of a handheld flashlight, with an output of 1-3 W. Prices range from 200 to ∅400, depending on beam power.
    2. The “Burning & Cutting Lasers” page at Information Unlimited offers plans, kits and assembled units of portable and desktop lasers for cutting, engraving and other purposes.
    3. “Kipkay” on YouTube likes to modify handheld laser pointers, jacking up the beam power on occasion.

    As for railguns . . . DuckDuckGo search for “railgun DIY”.

  8. The power of the sword, say the minority . . . , is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
    Tench Coxe, Letter to the Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 13.4
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook page / Facebook profile / Fetlife / Google Plus / seen.life / tsu / Twitter / WordPress.com
    2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    3. Extropy Unbound Facebook page
    4. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    5. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    6. The Libertarian Enterprise Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit.

Thursday, 21 March 2013

[LPNM] Patti Bushee and Pat Davis Hinder, Not Help, the LGBT Cause

Santa Fe City Councilor Patti Bushee and ProgressNow New Mexico’s Executive Director Pat Davis will tell you that they are all in favor of expanding the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. In reality, they are ultimately hindering the LGBT cause, as opposed to helping it.

“How so?” you might ask. After all, both of them have been rather outspoken in support of same-sex marriage.

In today’s Albuquerque Journal, Bushee was quoted (and her hand photographed) as “urging county clerks to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses.”[1]

And ProgressNow New Mexico joined in yesterday with an email blast and Facebook posting.[2]

Now remember that in 2005, Democrat Attorney General Patsy Madrid filed litigation against same-sex marriage licenses issued by Victoria Dunlap. Those with good memories for the political scene will note that Dunlap was the Republican County Clerk in Sandoval County at the time. After Dunlap left office, Patsy dropped the lawsuit she filed against Dunlap’s actions.

The lesson to be learned from this is the Democrats will treat people of the LGBT persuasion as a political soccer ball, to be kicked around at a whim. Why shouldn’t they, as LGBT people will vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat regardless of what Democrats do between elections?

And it should also be noted that both Bushee and Davis regard the rights of others not in their political circle as soccer balls, to be kicked around at their leisure. If not as flies to be swatted.

On the latter, I’m referring to one issue in particular, specifically the individual right of private civilians to own and carry weapons, for the purpose of self-defense.

On 20 December 2012, Bushee said that she would sponsor a ban on civilian possession of “assault weapons” – military-pattern semiautomatic rifles – within the city limits of Santa Fe[3]. Warbling in tune with Bushee, ProgressNow NM has kept up a steady flow of strident, hoplophobic catcalls on behalf of the victim disarmament cause[4].

Consider that since it was founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party has supported the rights of LGBT people to live their lives free from coercion just the same as we libertarians support the rights of conservatives to live free from coercion.

How many conservative-type people in New Mexico really care per se about LGBT people being of the LGBT persuasion? Probably not many. So when I bring up to them the idea that LGBT should be just as free as they are to live without coercion, my case is undermined by Davis, Bushee and their ilk clamoring to infringe upon other, equally-cherished rights. “Why should I care about their rights when they don’t care about mine?” goes the question.

In short, if Bushee and Davis want their cherished freedom to be LGBT to be upheld, it would behoove them to respect the rights of others to own and carry weapons, among other rights.


NOTES

  1. Albuquerque Journal: 20 March 2013 – City Attorney: Same-sex marriage OK
    Santa Fe New Mexican: 19 March 2013 – Santa Fe leaders ask county clerks to honor same-sex marriage
  2. ProgressNow New Mexico – Facebook page post and email blast
  3. Albuquerque Journal: 20 December 2012 – Assault Weapons Ban?, 14 January 2013 – Coss Headlines Santa Fe Gun Control Press Conference
  4. http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/488185797897738
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/488015187914799
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487840961265555
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487719194611065
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487713881278263
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/526701757382247
    http://progressnownewmexico.pnstate.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=81426.0
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487208071328844
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487207284662256
  5. Original article
  6. Links to this post
  7. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs – WordPress / Yahoo!
    2. The Weekly SeditionWordPress / Yahoo!
    3. Duke City Fix

Copyright © 2013 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, 17 December 2010

Crime and Self-Defense at CNM [CNM Dissent]

Current mood: cynical

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Timely Notice of Incident on Main Campus
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:36:24
From: cnm@cnm.edu
To: undisclosed-recipients

It was reported to CNM Security today (Dec. 13) that an alleged sexual assault of a female occurred on Dec. 6, 2010, at 1 p.m. at the BMX parking lot on CNM’s Main Campus[1]. Anyone with information should contact Lt. Conklin in the CNM Security department at 224-4635. It is believed that the suspect was a male around 6-feet tall and heavy set with long black hair and thick facial hair/mustache, possibly Hispanic or Native American, driving a van.

All individuals should remain vigilant and aware of their surroundings in parking lots and should report any suspicious or unusual activity to CNM Security immediately at 224-3001.

This notice is sent in compliance with the “Timely Notice” provisions of the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1998[2].

How nice of the Administration to comply with federal law in notifying us students and faculty about this incident.

Still, it is rather . . . (is “alarming” too strong a word here? No, it isn’t) . . . alarming that such an incident like this could happen in broad daylight is what we would presume to be an open parking lot[3].

I wonder if this incident might have been facilitated in any way by CNM’s policies of victim disarmament[4]:

Never bring firearms or other weapons on premises, including buildings, parking lots and vehicles.


NOTES

  1. The BMX parking lot is tucked away behind Isotopes Park and the Student Services Center – see this map for yourself.
  2. Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1998
  3. Classes for the Fall 2010 semester concluded on Saturday, 11 December.
  4. Related post – Is CCW (Partially) OK on Campus?
  5. Original article
  6. Reposted –
    1. New Mexico Liberty

Copyright © 2010 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Friday, 30 April 2010

Harry Brown (the movie)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:54 AM (03:54)

Current mood: ecstatic

After I saw the link to trailers for this movie on Facebook, I was intrigued because of the name Harry Browne was the LP’s presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. What this movie appears to be is a British version of the1974 movie Death Wish, starring Charles Bronson.

The official movie poster click to enlarge (or here for a PDF version)
The official movie site

The movie’s American site

The movie’s Facebook page

The Wikipedia page

Well, what do you do when the cops give you the blow-off, as they do with Mr. Brown in this movie, as played by Michael Caine?


Click to enlarge


bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Wednesday, 22 April 2009

Quote of the Day, 22 April 2009

Filed under: Politics, Quote of the Day, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:58 PM (20:58)

Current mood: content

“That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm and continue to supply the materials until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads must appear to everyone more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it, however, be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government: still it would not be going too far to say that the State governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger . . . . This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands . . . . It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments . . . forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the severl kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. . . . Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.”
James Madison, The Federalist No. 46


Friday, 20 February 2009

Is CCW (Partially) OK on Campus? [CNM Dissent]

Current mood: amused, contemplative, devious

Is CCW (carrying concealed weapons) OK on CNM’s campuses? The Administration says no, but read on . . .

According to CNM’s Student Code of Conduct, carrying weapons on campus is verboeten

NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT:
ALL STUDENTS
SAFETY VIOLATIONS
1. Unauthorized use, possession or storage of any weapon or explosive (including fireworks) on CNM premises or at CNM sponsored activities.[1]

Which is kind of amusing, because here’s some other violations that I see on a routine basis —

  • skateboarding
  • dispersing litter on the premises (I don’t actually see this one, but there’s litter scattered around campus, and it’s not getting there on its own . . .)
  • drinking and eating in classrooms and labs
  • parking bicycles outside of designated areas

There’s even a situation where the Photonics Lab (N-21) was repeated entered by various persons after hours, resulting in various lasers being misaligned, mirrors monkeyed with, a staff member’s bicycle taken for an unauthorized ride and returned with goathead seeds stuck all over the tires . . .

There’s more from the “Safety” Department

  • Never bring firearms or other weapons on premises, including buildings, parking lots and vehicles.
  • Fascination with guns or other weapons may indicate an employee at risk for violent behavior. Carefully consider such situations and, if appropriate, report it to your supervisor.

That second line there is particularly chilling — “fascination with guns or other weapons” is a reason to report someone as a threat. So if a student or faculty member is reading a gun- or martial-arts-related book or magazine, the person becomes a “threat” ? Consider that the school’s IT Department has the capability to monitor the web traffic of each and every user, student, staff and faculty alike. What’s to stop the Administration from labeling sites concerning weapons as “suspicious,” and to flag traffic to them for review?

Answer — only the good graces of the Administration. Hell, even this blog posting could be considered “grounds for disciplinary action.”

Now to the meat of this matter — is having weapons on campus illegal?

First, let’s stipulate the sheer idiocy of the question, in that anything — car, book, rolled-up-newspaper, ballpoint pen, walking cane, chair, water bottle — can be used as a weapon if used with the intent to harm another — or defend oneself or others from harm. The “debate” here revolves around objects purposely-built to serve that intent — guns, certain knives, batons.

More to the point, the Powers That Be and their lapdogs are especially worried about The Root Of All Violence — The Gun.

Is having a gun on campus illegal? Yes and no.

YES, in that the hoplophobic prohibition against them is in the rules that students and faculty agree to upon signing up, which is “backed up” by State Law, considering that CNM is property of the State of New Mexico, and such. Especially if you get caught with one in your pocket, purse or on your belt. (Cops excepted, of course.)

NO — As a public institution, CNM is (or should be) obliged to follow the State Constitution, which states —

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)[2]

But who am I fooling here? I have no expectations that the Administration or Governing Board will care in the slightest that students and staff are functional, rational adults, with all of the expectant rights, privileges and immunities. Still, you should be OK IF YOU KEEP YOUR WEAPON LOCKED IN THE TRUNK OF YOUR CAR. See this letter to UNM’s Daily Lobo

Having a concealed weapon in a vehicle on campus is legal
Issue date: 1/28/09 Section: Opinion

Editor,

I am writing this in response to Larry Tarvin’s confusion on whether a weapon can be in a vehicle at school, and I want to assure you that the dean of students is correct that a person can have a loaded, concealed weapon in his or her vehicle on campus.

This is because in New Mexico, a car is considered an extension of your dwelling and is private property. As such, anything you can legally have in your home, you can legally have in your vehicle, even if it is parked on city or state property. There are some exceptions, however. The Air Force base and public schools are different as they are either federal property or, in the case of schools, federally funded. But if you remove the weapon from your vehicle — even just to move it from the front seat to the trunk — you would be in violation of the law and committing a fourth-degree felony.

I know this because I have a concealed-carry license and this was explained to us during the training course. Like it or not, property laws are why people can have a weapon in their car on state or city property. In fact, you do not even need a license (concealed-carry or otherwise) to have a loaded weapon concealed in your vehicle just as you don’t need a license to have it concealed in your house.

James Taylor
UNM student

Finally, let’s examine another “gun free school zone” — Virginia Tech. We know all too well about how much Seung-Hui Cho complied with Virginia Tech’s weapons-prohibition rules, don’t we?

That’s the reason that such codes are more properly referred to as victim disarmament codes.


NOTES

  1. Student Code of Conduct, bottom left of page 3
  2. Article II – Bill of Rights, Section 6 – Right to bear arms
  3. Related organizations — Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and the CNM Shooting Club
  4. Original article

Copyright © 2009 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: