Freedom

Suppressors for hunting? Yes, please!

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Texas Park and Wildlife Department is considering a rule change regarding hunting, specifically with suppressors.

Here’s the text from the agenda:

         The proposed amendment to §65.11, concerning Lawful Means, would allow the use of firearm silencers to hunt alligators, game animals and game birds. Under current rule, the use of sound-suppressing devices to hunt alligators, game animals or game birds is unlawful. The department has determined that there is no resource- or enforcement-related reason to prohibit the use of firearm silencers for the take of alligators, game animals or game birds, and therefore proposes to eliminate the current prohibition. The department notes that if the proposed is adopted, it will not relieve any person of the obligation to otherwise comply with any applicable state, federal, or local law governing the possession or use of firearm silencers. The proposed amendment also alters §65.11(3) to include additional counties to the applicability of the provisions governing the use of crossbows. This change is necessary to ensure consistency with the changes to §65.42 discussed elsewhere in this preamble.

Yes please!

Why? Well, first consider their own wording: “The department has determined there is no resource- or enforcement-related reason to prohibit the use….”  So on the one hand, I like this because they see no sound reason to keep a rule around, so they’re going to discard it. This is how things should work! Simplification. Enhancing freedom. Enabling choice. Plus, it also frees up the department and those bound to enforce the rules from work that serves no gain, thus enabling them to focus on work that matters.

Here’s an article with more reasons for suppressors.

But to me, this hits closer to home.

On this last deer hunting trip, Daughter got her ears rung pretty bad. Yes I know, I should have had hearing protection on her — I do know better, but I often don’t while hunting so I can hear what’s going on around me. Plus, the muzzle is out the blind window and due to the structure of things it usually works out ok. But this past one? Not so much. I regret it and do feel awful for it. But this is the trade-off that we have to deal with: to hear the game, but then to not hear the gunshot. I do have electronic muffs, but while they work great for me on the range, I find in the woods, not so much. Different dynamic.

But if we could have suppressors? What a world of difference it would make!

I can legally own a suppressor here in Texas, but I can’t use it for deer or game hunting. I could use it to take exotic deer, I have gone on hog hunts with suppressed rifles. And so why if we can take those with it, why can’t we take game animals? What’s the difference? Apparently none, and it’s great to see TPWD recognizing that and moving on the item.

So what to do?

Well, right now we wait. TPWD will have their meeting on January 25, 2012. After that we’ll know more about how to proceed. It will be a matter of public comment, and you’ll want to be sure to add your comment in favor of suppressor use.

Elephant Repellaphant

/ hsoi

In her usual style, Tam’s commentary nails it:

[The TSA] come out and admit that they haven’t foiled any terrorist plots of which they’re aware, but they “argue that the random nature of the searches and the presence of armed officers serve as a deterrent and bolster public confidence.”

In other words, you don’t see any elephants around here, do you? So the elephant repellant must be working! Also left unexplained is how the public’s confidence is supposed to be bolstered by getting their crotch randomly sniffed by that noted Fourth Amendment legal expert, Fluffy the Uberhund.

The kicker? There are a fair number of people who believe security theater actually works and is doing good at keeping this country and its citizens safe.

The sad part is, those people keep getting elected.

The sadder part is, there are people who keep electing the first group of people.

 

Some of us already knew this

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

It’s Christmastime.

People travel to see family and friends.

And of course, that means being violated by the TSA.

All in the name of safety, of course.

Do you really think any of those measures actually improve safety and security? Vanity Fair has a revealing article on the security theater. (h/t Slashdot)

To a large number of security analysts, this expenditure makes no sense. The vast cost is not worth the infinitesimal benefit. Not only has the actual threat from terror been exaggerated, they say, but the great bulk of the post-9/11 measures to contain it are little more than what Schneier mocks as “security theater”: actions that accomplish nothing but are designed to make the government look like it is on the job. In fact, the continuing expenditure on security may actually have made the United States less safe.

[…]

Security theater, from this perspective, is an attempt to convey a message: “We are doing everything possible to protect you.” When 9/11 shattered the public’s confidence in flying, Slovic says, the handful of anti-terror measures that actually work—hardening the cockpit door, positive baggage matching, more-effective intelligence—would not have addressed the public’s dread, because the measures can’t really be seen. Relying on them would have been the equivalent of saying, “Have confidence in Uncle Sam,” when the problem was the very loss of confidence. So a certain amount of theater made sense. Over time, though, the value of the message changes. At first the policeman in the train station reassures you. Later, the uniform sends a message: train travel is dangerous. “The show gets less effective, and sometimes it becomes counterproductive.”

I was at a credit union today. While waiting for the teller I saw a placard discussing their measures regarding identity theft. I forget the exact wording, but one word stood out to me: “feel”. It spoke about how difficult it is to “feel safe” (in a post-9/11 world, referencing the PATRIOT Act and how it changed banking regulations). And you see, that’s what it’s all about: trying to feel safe. Not actually doing anything that actually will make us safe, just a feeling of safety, even if it’s a lie.

Why can’t he be a jackass?

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

Apparently there’s a CHL instructor here in Texas that doesn’t want everyone’s business:

“If you are a socialist liberal and or voted for the current campaigner in chief, please do not take this class. You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision as under the law.”

The ad continues, going on to say,”If you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class with no shame; I am Crockett Keller, thank you and God bless America.”

Of course, a lot of people have their panties in a bunch over this.

What I’m wanting to understand is… why is this a problem?

Why can’t this man conduct himself as he wishes? Why can’t this man conduct his business as he wishes?

He’s not hurting anyone, he’s not depriving anyone of anything. There are lots of CHL Instructors in Texas (I’m one), so take your business elsewhere. That’s one of those wonderful little things we like to call “freedom” in this country. He’s free to act as he wishes, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. You’re free to not associate with him if you don’t like him and what he’s doing.

The thing is folks, if someone wishes to behave like a jackass, why should we stop them? They will reap what they sow; karma is real; how ever you want to look at it. You know the saying… “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt”? Well… when they open their mouth, at least then we know who the fools are and can (re)act accordingly.

As for DPS well… one can argue that being a DPS-certified Instructor, he reflects upon all CHL Instructors and DPS and the Texas CHL program. As the article notes, DPS is going to look into this. DPS has every right, authority, and responsibility to maintain the CHL program, and if revoking his instructor license is deemed proper, then so be it. Mr. Keller can still run his private business as he sees fit, but the state doesn’t have to associate nor condone it.

I don’t share Mr. Keller’s line of reasoning; I understand where he’s coming from, but I do not agree with him. Note, there are NRA/TSRA A-rated Democrats. As well, someone hell-bent on killing you isn’t going to seek a CHL. However, if we truly believe in freedom then yes, you need to let the man conduct himself as he is. He’s not hurting anyone, depriving anyone, abridging anyone (except perhaps himself). All he has is what some might call an unpopular opinion, and he’s willing to stand up for his beliefs. You “Freedom of Speech” lovers must remember that 1A is about protecting unpopular speech. As Evelyn Hall said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Do you believe in freedom? Or don’t you?

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

/ hsoi

Airport-type “security” screening to visit the Statue of Liberty.

(Look at the URL. Methinks “journalists” in New York have no idea what “to the hilt” means).

Ticket holders are screened at a checkpoint, manned by Park Police, before boarding a ferry for the short trip to Liberty and nearby Ellis Islands. The screening includes magnetometers and X-ray machines. A second check is conducted once visitors are on the islands.

[…]

[A visitor] was surprised by the rigorous screening, much like an airport, with screeners asking visitors to take off their belts and shoes.

This is freedom?

Oh the irony.

*sigh*

(h/t Unc)

Even Imaginarily Armed Gays Don’t Get Bashed

/ hsoi

I’ve thought a lot about the turning point of the situation — the fact that one of them thought that I might have a gun. None of them said, “There’s a law against antigay hate crimes!” That wasn’t the deterrent. It was the possibility that I might have had a gun that saved my life Friday night.

Jimmy LaSalvia is gay. He was attacked by 8 thugs for being, as they called him, a “fucking faggot”. Laws, restraining orders, police, none of that did any good to prevent this assault from happening. The only thing that kept Jimmy alive and unharmed was the fact his attackers thought he had a gun. Full story. (h/t Cato)

While there are exceptions (Jimmy himself being one of them), in general you find the same people who want rights for minorities — like women and GLBT — to also hold anti-gun and gun-banning positions.

A weapon is a force equalizer, they allow the user to overcome disparity. When because of their minority status someone repressed and held in a lower and more vulnerable regard, why would those that claim to fight for their rights, that claim these groups deserve equal status, wish to deny them means to overcome disparity?

If you want rights and equality for all, remember the right to life and dignity is the essential first step. There are those in this world that seek to deprive good people of those things — don’t be one of them.

Freedom is not defined by safety…

/ hsoi

“Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.”

— Ron Paul

Quote for the day

/ hsoi

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” –James Madison, speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

Thanx, Lane.