Recently in Self Defense & Security Category

This last weekend, I bought a Surefire G2 Nitrolon high-output flashlight at a Reno gun show, about $35. It's a very good alternative to the more expensive, earlier metal version, the Surefire 6P. For those of my friends who are getting into defensive pistolcraft for the first time - and who have budget constraints - I recommend this lightweight version.

Today's QOTD is a bit of background on the graphic novel "Roswell, Texas" by L. Neil Smith and Scott Beiser, which has been serialized in webcomic form on the Bighead Press website. It's a kick, and I recommend it highly.

As I mentioned a couple of days ago, I met my friend Dale Seago at the Pleasanton Highland Games this last weekend. Both Dale and our dojo chum Garland were wearing the new version of the Cold Steel Special Projects Scottish Dirk, which Dale reviews today in Swordforum.com. I was deeply impressed, and took Dale's advice to order it from the vendor indicated by Froogle as the lowest price supplier, Premium Knives. Noticing how Garland's unmodified Cold Steel-supplied dirk sheath loop seemed flimsy, I took Dale's advice at the Games to pick up a Scottish Dirk Frog from onsite vendor Ravenwood Leather, for the amazingly low price of $10.

I'm looking forward to receiving the knife in a few days.

L. Neil Smith finally does a real blog, "L. Neil Smith at Random", with comments enabled. I've long thought that Neil's writing would fit the format, and now I'm sure of it.

I picked up a decent sword stand in San Francisco's Chinatown yesterday. It's 23 inches high, $25 (apparently non-negotiable in the store from which I bought it) and comes in four matt-lacquered wood pieces with a set of wood screws. Power screwdriver in hand, I assembled it in a couple of minutes. Here it is with my Bugei Samurai Koshirae Katana:

The base is indented to hold the end of the saya in place, and seems fairly sturdy. They're available in most of the tourist gift shops in San Francisco's Chinatown. Not as common as the conventional over-the-mantlepiece (or in the tokonoma) horizontal stand, but has a nice "shotgun ready rack" aspect to it.

I had an offer to get some free stick time in a friend's friend's luxury (pressurized cabin, an aisle between the seats, etc.) airplane for a trip he and the other guy were making to CES in Las Vegas, but I'm getting ready for school on Monday, so I declined. I'm taking in some of the show's highlights by way of reportage, and just saw this on one of the gadget/gimmick blogs:

"Radar Scope sees through walls"

Fascinating, and a bit terrifying at the same time. It's a handheld device for detecting people on the other side of a (presumably radiolucent) wall. The display device looks milspec/ruggedized, and the printed matter pitches to military application, but I'm quite sure they're being pitched to police departments too. I wonder, what are the relevant U.S. laws with respect to using this device in warrantless searches? I believe SCOTUS has already ruled that "standoff" search techniques are not covered under the 4th Amendment.

I just had my suspicions about the security of bicycle cable locks validated: a few minutes ago, I witnessed an acquaintance use a diamond wheel on an angle grinder to remove a Kryptonite CC4 cable on one of my bikes in about 2 seconds.

I'm just about to crash soon, having come back from the first of a multi-day Bujinkan training seminar by Arnaud Cousergue of Paris (Vincennes, actually) at the Bujinkan Martial Arts Center in Sacramento, a couple of hours' drive from here.

That's Dr. Pete Lohstroh, a UC Davis reproductive biologist, and myself. Pete's interested in medical nanotechology too, by the way, but that's deliberately off topic. I really do meet cool people in this art.

The shiner I acquired Thursday night is even more pronounced in this photo, but it doesn't hurt at all anymore. On a related note, Arnaud ended the day insisting on the use of padded training weapons through the end of the year, for various reasons with which I entirely agree. To that end, on the way back from Sack-of-Tomatoes to Saint Jose, I stopped at the Home Despot near the Sacto dojo and acquired the requisite materials:

- a $1.97 bag of thin 6' bamboo rods from the Garden section
- a $1.97 6' section of 5/8" inside diameter foam copper pipe insulation

I then duct taped 3 pinky-width lengths of the bamboo together at 9-inch intervals, put that inside the foam, and placed styrofoam caps at the ends, duct taping those. I finished by taping the entire thing lengthwise.

Looks surprisingly good, and not at all like a late-night vodka fueled project. I took photos of every step of the project which I will be posting in a few days.

Time to crash now.

A gift from my training partner last night, and proof that padded training weapons are a good idea for some types of waza:

FEMA, in fact, is an illegal organization. It's mentioned nowhere in the Constitution (which lists the lawful powers of the government in Article I, Section 8), nor did anybody ever vote about it, neither you nor I, nor even the Congress. It was created out of thin air by Presidential fiat, and given unprecedented power to override, at gunpoint, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law in general.

L. Neil Smith

I'm rested now and recovered from last weekend's attendance at the 4-day tactical shotgun course at Front Sight Firearms Training Institute near Las Vegas, Nevada. I surprised myself by making Distinguished Graduate, so I'm now qualified to come back to attend the 4 Day Advanced Tactical Shotgun course. On the second day of training, Greg Carroll snapped this pic of me after the two of us had done our respective runs through the outdoor canyon "clean the hostage takers out" simulator exercise:

The (visible) firearm is my Benelli M1 Super 90, with a nylon tactical sling and a GG&G M3 Tactical Illuminator mounting rail in the 2 o'clock position on the foreend, not the 10 o'clock position GG&G recommends on their website (experience in a previous course having shown me that, as a right-handed longgunner, the 10 o'clock position allows the light to bump on.)

I'd last done a tactical shotgun course about 4 years ago, and so I was quite interested to see how training doctrine had changed in respect of that weapon at Front Sight. The men in the evolution I attended - those 13 in the class who were there for the full 4 days - were all at least previous attendees at another weapon systems class (e.g. defensive handgun, practical rifle) so the class was run at a slightly accelerated pace befitting the audience. Attendees were about evenly divided between cops, active duty military (a Marine heading back to Iraq soon) and private citizens, all of whom were treated exactly the same by the instructional staff, the excellent Chuck Burnett and John Pierson.

One difference I noticed was the much heavier emphasis on incorporating movement, keeping the fight dynamic, and training that way to the limited extent allowed in the "square range environment." I was particularly pleased that, after the Monday (4th day) afternoon skills test, and the "load and go" indoor tactical simulator, I was allowed to do several rounds of 2-man team shooting on the move, with my new friend David L. Loads of fun, and I was pleased to find that a walking skill I'd been cultivating the last few years, walking fast with very short tank-tread heel/toe action to keep the hips and shoulders on level planes, allowed me to get good hits moving both forward and backward, without muzzle bob.

I'm at a level of membership at Front Sight that allows me to take any firearms course free for the rest of my life, much like some golf club memberships. So, I get to take these courses again and again, which allows me not only to revisit, revive, and refine my skills, but also to work out equipment issues. I've discovered I really don't like the Lyman TacStar SideSaddle mounted on the left side of the receiver: it catches on my clothing, when loaded it dampens recoil (and hence reliability) on this recoil-operated weapon, and with the standard provided cross-receiver screw, was coming loose even though I'd installed it properly and Lock-Tited it. I guess a couple of thousand rounds will do that to the Lock-Tite. That, and I'm leery of over-tightening that screw for fear of impeding bolt travel. Oh, and there's the issue of potentially "egging out" the screw holes on the aluminum receiver. My friend David assures me that, should I care to keep the SideSaddle, I can send the weapon to a gunsmith who specializes in Class 3 firearms with aluminum receivers, experienced in setting up weapons to resist receiver failure, but I'm going to switch to keeping my slug rounds on a belt carrier anyway.

Nor am I going to solve the "problem" of having extra ammo by changing out the tube magazine from a 5 to an 8 round capacity. This is my home invasion repellant device... if I can't solve The Problem with what's available in that weapon, then I'm in a very serious situation indeed. I'm more and more preferring lighter, more maneuverable weapons the more I train, with as few bells and whistles as I can get away with. I've heard more than one long arms instructor over the years comment on how students will arrive at a course with their all-singing, all-dancing Space Gun rigs, everything mounted everywhere, only to find themselves quickly shedding equipment after the first day... especially when training in the 105 F degree desert heat. Heh.

Recommendation: check out Estate Cartridge's low-recoil 12-gauge 9-pellet 00 SWAT loads. I've used this buckshot at a previous shotgun course, and had made the decision to attend this most recent course with too little lead time to order more of the same for this class. So, I had a mere few dozen of them to use at various times during this course, instead using a mix of Winchester and Federal buckshot for most exercises. No comparison. At half the price of Federal, the Estate-branded cartridges gave outstandingly tight and nicely distributed (e.g. no annular "donuts of death") patterns, turning heads on the firing line and eliciting a number of "what are you shooting, man?" enquiries.

I had the pleasure of remaking the acquaintance of at least one old friend, who was taking a course on an adjacent range. Additionally, I was happy to have a couple of libertarian friends, longtime (but previously untrained) gunowners, take the full 4 Day Defensive Handgun course on the same weekend. Both men, Alan and Chris, came away from the experience very much more competent than when they arrived.

In my opinion, ninjutsu is not a spiritual system (outside the confines of martial training) or a religion. Some may disagree.

Asking for ninjutsu without the martial aspects would be akin to asking some Navy SEAL "I want the spiritual strength and tenacity of a Navy SEAL but I don't want to do any hard physical training."

Jeff Sherwin

My teacher Dale Seago sent this reference to "Oppressive Knife Laws" to our dojo's mailing list. This summary dates from 1998, but is a nicely written short piece on the key features of this particular type of prohibitionism.

I recently did some driving through Nevada and California, working remotely from a number of hotels. I loaded up my iPod (which I connect to a Pioneer black box installed behind the dash, itself interfaced with the sound system's head unit) with music, podcasts, and audio books (almost all of it purchased on iTunes,) including an unabridged copy of:

"Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side to Everything," by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.

I thoroughly enjoyed the 6 hours of sometimes humorous, often surprising and counterintuitive anecdote. I highly recommend it: I do enjoy economic storytelling, from Braudel to Postrel to Friedman Jr. and now these guys.

Anyone else encountered this book or its audio equivalent?

I will add the qualification here that the work does gloss over the correlation between concealed carry laws and violent crime, primarily since the authors took John R. Lott as the authority on the matter... which is a double shame, since there's much there to explore, and since Lott seems to have screwed the pooch with respect to the issue of academic integrity.

Curt Howland has pointed me to a relevant blog entry hosted by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

My friend L. Neil Smith emailed this today:

"Russell --

I thought you and Dale [Seago] might enjoy seeing a project I put together a long time ago, possibly before you came to Fort Collins the first time. As you can see, it's a Camillus Marine Corps knife wedded to a bayonet. It fits my M1 Carbine, the standard issue bayonet for which is a disgrace.

Note the serrated portion at the base of the blade. That was done with a
checkering file. Ahead of my time, I guess."

Here's another:

My Bujinkan teacher Dale followed up:

"Very sweet piece of work -- nicely done!!

BTW, the Marine Corps has adopted a new official-issue bayonet which largely retains the look of the old Ka-bar, but with a longer blade (8" instead of 7"). It's an issue item for Marines, but available commercially for private purchase as well."

This is the new Marine issue item, the "ON3S ONTARIO Marine Bayonet Khaki Brown Handle And Sheath 8" Blade":

Cops are armed when civilians can't be, often with weapons civilians can't have. I can't tell you how sick I get of seeing notations in catalogs like Brigade Quartermaster that certain items are for cops only.

Cops live and operate within a strict hierarchy, usually with titles like "sergeant", "lieutenant", "captain", and so forth. Most of them wear military-style uniforms, and an argument can be made that so-called "plainclothes" operations ought to be outlawed. Increasingly, they wear military battledress and carry military weapons.

Cops form a culture all to themselves, like professional soldiers, and usually have little to do with those who are not cops. They do call us "civilians". I never heard this term "little people" before. They also call us "assholes" and say that the public just consists of criminals who haven't been caught yet. I know because I was there at one time.

Yeah, I understand the theory that they're civilians, too. I repeat that it's bullshit. What they are, in fact, is an occupying military force, with strategic bases in every hamlet in the nation -- which is why they and their hangers-on lie to us and possibly to themselves about being civilians, too.

They are the very standing army that the Founding Fathers were afraid of.

And for good reason.

L. Neil Smith
In response last night to a post I made on a mailing list about how cops refer to non-cops as "civilians" when they, too, are in fact "civilians."

Indeed, I am opposed even to free market supplied "police" in the conventional sense. The potential - indeed, universal reality - of armed agencies abusing their power is such that I believe that it is foolish for individuals to delegate their use of just force and to rely on third parties. We need an armed citizenry, the "hue and cry", and the use of specialist/expert "martials" for arrest only in restricted cases.

Dr. Chris R. Tame
Excerpted with permission from a recent private correspondance

One afternoon last week I rented an electric boat and plied around the north lake in Beihai Park. After returning the craft to the boathouse, I came across this guy doing taijiquan near the shore, practicing a jian form:

When he'd finished several iterations of the same form, he walked over to the bench where a couple of older women had been watching intently. He then started pushing the tip of the jian into the bench near them! What the hell?

Ah... it was a collapsing practice piece, neatly converting into an 8-inch assembly, which he then slipped into the carry pouch his wife held out for him. Neat! I wanted one of those jian then and there, but didn't have time left in the trip to shop for one. Rest assured it's on my shopping list for my next Beijing visit.

Speaking of good martial arts training, which I just mentioned I undertook last weekend with Don Angier (and the weekend before with great teachers from my own art), I just stumbled across this Jan 2005 article by Peter Boylan, "The Costs of Training with the Best" author of "Angry White Pyjamas: A Scrawny Oxford Poet Takes Lessons From The Tokyo Riot Police" (which I've read and recommend).

Boylan has some good points to make, and some sad observations to share.

I mentioned here a couple of years ago that I attended a seminar given by Don Angier of Yanagi Ryu Aiki Jiu Jitsu. I missed last year's event in northern Californa, but I managed to make this year's event last weekend. I attended both days (as did another Bujinkan practicioner), and met one other Bujinkan student during the Sunday session at Aikido of Diablo Valley.

As has always been the case with Don's seminars, I enjoyed it immensely. Both days were Yanagi-style taijutsu training, no weapons this time (e.g. the jojutsu we did in April 2003.)

The first day, we did 3-man training involving breaking from 2-attacker both-arm wrist grabs (morote in aikido parlance). The second day, we did 2-man Yanagi "kiri dori" with reversals. Both days ended with recap training.

As usual, the training was incredibly useful: the principles of Angier's art are shared with our own, with an interestingly different emphasis on how to convey them. I didn't attend with the intent of "learning their art" - that really only happens with core Yanagi students, in their dojo environment, as is the case with us and our art - but what I do expect, as I've experienced in previous years' training with the Yanagi folks, is that I'll be able to see aspects of our own art from an outside perspective.

One solid claim I can make for training with these guys is that I'm forced to re-examine all the "unclean" (or sloppy) elements in my own movement.

Really, I can't recommend highly enough that Bujinkan students take the time to attend a seminar by this incredible 73 year old practicioner of a rare Japanese family art.

I should also add that the people I trained with, mostly aikidoka, were very good training partners, and incredibly welcoming, which made the experience all the more rewarding.

For a martial art to be a martial art, rather than some other form of physical expression (some other "art" entirely), its focus must remain on fighting. A truly accomplished warrior may renounce violence -- but only his or her mastery of violence makes this possible. If the style or system you study leaves you unable to defend yourself in a realistic self-defense scenario, it may indeed be an art -- but it is not martial at all. Its practitioners delude themselves if they believe that it is.

In the same vein, a martial art or martial artist whose attitude towards weapons is one of contempt, mistrust, fear, or condescension tells you volumes about its, his, or her "martialism." Weapons are force multipliers -- tools that perform the same function as hammers, levers, and pliers in that they make it easier to accomplish a specific task. As the purpose of a martial art is to deliver force against another human or group of humans, only the most ignorant of martial artists would dismiss or reject tools that make performing this task more efficient and less risky. There is no such thing as an immoral tool. There are only immoral tool users.

Phil Elmore

My Bujinkan teacher Dale Seago mentioned this a few days ago:

Some VERY good pages on Japanese armor which give a clearer understanding of why armored fighting methods are the way they are; also sections on historic Japanese clothing & accessories, the design and layout of Japanese estates during the Heian period, etc.

For those with a bent toward Humphreyesque "cultural detective work", there's an essay on "Rape as the First Act of Romance in Heian Japan" which makes it pretty clear that the feudal Japanese viewed some things quite differently from the way we do in our society today... (Whaddaya mean I should wait 'til the 3rd date?!?)

Yesterday, I attended Dale Seago's "Return from Japan" seminar in San Francisco. I'm reminded that my friend Monica attended a Bujinkan seminar in London, and had some good things to say about her training experience.

Anton Sherwood has moved his musings to a blogging system with a commenting facility and much friendlier navigation. No trivial feat, given that he's been blogging (in one place) since February 2002... this meant converting over 1400 postings! Take a look.

The infamous "Assault Weapons Ban" died today. I wish I had more time to express my happiness about this, but I'm extremely busy.

By the title, I mean I didn't expect that my friend Andy would be taking a picture of me at this moment:

It was pretty dark in the shade of the shooting stall, in stark contrast with the sunny range, and no fill flash was used. I managed to extract a bit more information using the GIMP.

Firearm was a full-frame H&K USP in .45ACP, firing on a "hostage rescue" metal silhouette at 15 meters. Hard shot, wouldn't want to have to do that for a living. I would never seek to be in such a horrifying predicament, and certainly wouldn't want to have to use a pistol, at relative long range, unsupported, to try pulling it off. Still, one should always train for the unthinkable.

You might want to take note of the interconnection between purpose and action in the minimal State. The minimal State does not, for instance, build art museums, because it does not exist to promote art but to enforce agreements and provide mutual defense. In order to build an art museum, the State would need to acquire the resources with which to build it. If people are willing to donate those resources freely, there is no need for the State to build the museum — it could be built privately. If people are not willing to donate the resources freely, then the act of forcibly taking the needed resources turns the purpose of the minimal State on its head — instead of enforcing the decision by the participants to respect each other's lives and property so that their own lives and property will be respected, the State then becomes an agent for some to abscond with the property of others. I may think it is a good idea to build a home for orphans, but if I take your resources against your will to do it, whether I'm an official of the State or a private citizen, I have violated the truce. To obey the truce, I must convince you to voluntarily provide resources for my goals, whether by trading with you or appealing to your charitable instincts.

In short, if the justification of the minimal State is that it exists, at the behest of a collection of sovereign individuals, to enforce a mutually beneficial truce among those who choose to participate in it, and to organize mutual defense against those who choose not to participate by violating the truce, then that justification does not reasonably permit the expropriation of resources for the purpose of projects that are merely laudable.

Note that this view of the minimal State cannot provide a justification for initiating warfare in distant lands which are not a threat its citizens' safety, regardless of how laudable it might be to re-arrange the social structures of those foreign places to suit enlightened tastes. However, by the same token, neither position prevents individuals from engaging in such activities on their own, at their own risk and with their own resources.

Perry Metzger, in "What is the Role of the State?" today

I'll tell you what I'd prefer our government's foreign policy to be, assuming we need to have a State at all. My proposal is pretty simple: Swiss-style armed neutrality. That means no invasions, no military threats, no foreign aid, no "covert operations", no military bases outside the country, no attempts to influence the internal affairs of foreign countries whatsoever.

No one blows up bombs in the streets of Geneva. No one from Switzerland gets kidnaped in third world countries to protest the evils of Swiss foreign policy. Wherever they go, at worst, people think of the Swiss as boring — it is rare that anyone feels the need to buttonhole someone from Zurich or Lugano and tell them off for what their government does.

The Swiss are not pacifists, though. They have a very strong militia for defense, and in times past when Europe was less peaceful, it would have been extremely costly for an attacker to invade them. Even if (in the case of particularly strong enemies) an invasion might have ultimately succeeded, it would have yielded very little of value at an astonishing expense.

Perry Metzger

If forced to shoot someone in self defence, you should claim that you were robbing him at gunpoint after discovering him in your home.

That way you get out on probation immediately, can buy a replacement firearm off "the street", and serve no jail time.

Kristopher Barrett

Saw this commented on by someone on a mailing list I frequent: the "Quantum Sleeper: the safest rest you've ever had." It's one of the strangest things I've seen in recent times, a bed cum saferoom, very coffinlike. I'm not sure I like it... why not keep a shotgun by the bed instead?

Monica White comments on L. Neil Smith's "Captain Bligh’s Revenge," in which he informs us (I'd not known) that the British government is intent on wrecking the tiny society of Pitcairn Island: stealing their guns and imprisoning those who don't conform to their standards of marriage practice.

As Congressman Ron Paul has said, "To many politicians the American government is America and patriotism means working for the benefit of the state." Thus, on a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. This, according to Congressman Paul, is why the idea of compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when it really represents collectivism and involuntary servitude.

Ronald Reagan said it best: "The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral." He understood that conscription assumes our nation's young people belong to the state. Yet America was founded on the opposite principle; that the state exists to serve the individual. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.

Michael Badnarik

If we have learned anything over the past 18 months it is this: that the first rule of politics - power must never be trusted - still applies. The government will neither regulate itself nor be regulated by the institutions which surround it. Parliament chose to believe a string of obvious lies. The media repeated them, the civil service let them pass, the judiciary endorsed them. The answer to the age-old political question - who guards the guards? - remains unchanged. Only the people will hold the government to account.

They have two means of doing so. The first is to throw it out of office at the next election. This works only when we are permitted to choose an alternative set of policies. But in almost every nation, a new contract has now been struck between the main political parties: they have chosen to agree on almost all significant areas of policy. This leaves the people disenfranchised: they can vote out the monkeys but not the organ-grinder.

George Monbiot

I do not believe that fighting is the primary goal of martial arts in contemporary times. I believe that it has far greater potential. Hatsumi Sensei [says] that it is to produce higher human beings and create peace. Although these may sound like lofty ideals, we have all witnessed the personal evolution of practitioners and seen the spirit of friendship flourish between countries. In many cases, the Bujinkan has created friendships between students even when their home countries were still hostile.

Martial arts provide a model of life. They teach us to be positive and resolved in the face of adversity. They teach us to seek truth (albeit at first through technique), they teach us to seek harmony rather than accord, they teach us cooperation (which is necessary during practice) and they teach us the humility to know that we must act as part of nature not contrary to it. If we must fight, then we should do so with a pure heart. To harm an opponent more than is necessary is savagery and is unbecoming of an artist. It is better that we are judged on our dignity and humanity, rather than by how fearsome we are.

In Japanese martial arts, there is a saying, ‘The sword that kills and the sword that spares’. This is usually taken to mean that the swordsman would have such skill that he could choose whether to kill or spare an opponent. Hatsumi Sensei said that there is another meaning, that one action may have included both. An example of this may have been when faced with no other choice, a samurai would have killed an attacker to prevent him from taking innocent lives. Although regretting the taking of life, his one sword cut would have killed and spared life at the same time. To make such a judgement for the correct reasons, the swordsman needed to have had a highly developed sense of humanity and justice. Taking life cannot be compared with giving life. Hurting cannot be compared to healing and destruction cannot be compared to creativity. We are not just martial practitioners, we are martial artists and we should create beauty through the movements of our bodies and hearts.

Peter King, on "Fighting"

On our dojo mailing list today, sometimes-training-buddy (and all around good guy) Irishman Stephen Ewart forwards this excellent essay, "Fighting," written by the U.K's Peter King, a superb Bujinkan practicioner and teacher with whom my friend Monica White has the privilege of training in London. An excerpt:

Hatsumi Sensei criticised martial artists who act like they are dangerous animals. He said that man has been able to use his intelligence to be able to kill dangerous animals in the world. Such people will be defeated – in a way that they had not expected, because they were outwitted by brain and not muscle. When Takamatsu Sensei was in China he was known as the Mongolian Tiger because of his martial prowess. However on his return to Japan, a friend said that he was more like a Japanese cat. Takamatsu Sensei was happy to agree. He said that, in China, it was necessary for him to be fierce like a tiger, but that now that he was back in Japan it was not. He added that women like cats and would often stroke them. Although said in humour, it illustrates the need to be hard only when needed, and then be able to return to gentleness.

Chris Claypoole has some interesting commentary today inspired by his recent reading of Eric Raymond's essay "Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun."

I had already known that disarming the public was a standard tactic of repressive governments. I have always been a "no compromise" supporter of the right to bear arms, but from the perspective of the right to self-defense. I had not made the connection between bearing arms (not merely gun ownership, but carrying as a normal part of life) and development of a responsible adult. The kind of person that will take responsibility for his/her actions, regardless of the consequences, motives, or lack of full information. Which means that this kind of person tends to think before acting when possible, and act decisively from a sound set of ethical principles when necessary.

This brings me to the tangential epiphany: When Robert A. Heinlein wrote that "An armed society is a polite society," I had always thought he meant that people tend not to act like an asshole if it might get them ventilated. Now I believe that what was also, and more importantly, meant was that people in an armed society grow up polite because they are armed! Knowing that a careless act or moment of unguarded anger could ruin your life and end someone else's will make the vast majority of people act more responsibly.

A few weeks ago, on a mailing list I run, it was reported to me by a good friend that the present management of the Extropy Institute disavows free-market libertarianism as its politico-economic root. As a matter of fact, we're told, extropianism was never about liberty and its deepest ramifications. To those people, I have a large number of examples from the early history of the extropian movement which contradict that claim, such as this reprint of a short declaration by law professor Tom Bell, writing in 1988 as "T.O. Morrow," a piece called "Economics and Politics" (words in brackets below added by me for clarification):

As information processing systems, good economic and political systems must meet the same standards that apply to any of their kind; they must achieve their ends efficiently. Researchers such as Friedrich Hayek have demonstrated that the most efficient economic and political systems are those that exert a minimum of control, allowing spontaneous orders to flourish. Economic and political systems must furthermore advance (trans)human ends. Extropy [magazine] takes the [editorial] point of view that these two qualifications are entirely compatible; the most efficient economic and political systems are those that maximize human liberty. Thus the best economic systems are free market, and the best political systems libertarian. (Libertarians assert that the state, if one is neccessary, should permit all acts except assault, theft and fraud.) Extropy [magazine] will pursue such free market and libertarian analyses of economic and political systems, working toward the day when economic and political systems serve us, rather than we them.

(T.0. Morrow, '88-'98. All Rights Reserved. Please attach this paragraph to all copies. Fully attributed noncommercial use of this document hereby permitted.)

This was, as mentioned, published in the paper version of Extropy magazine (a copy of which I own), and is notated "online version, edited Nov. '96." I plan to publish many more such examples as I run across them, at my convenience. Why? Well, while I do acknowledge that the term "extropian" has been diluted to the extent it's indistinguishable from standard socialist transhumanism - and this is a tragic thing - I will not stand for the historical revisionism being pushed by some of those in the existing "extropian" movement... especially since I've been around that movement from the very beginning, and will not drink the Kool-Aid.

An excellent essay by Eric Raymond, "Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life." (Thanks to Steve Pegram.)

To believe one is incompetent to bear arms is... to live in corroding and almost always needless fear of the self — in fact, to affirm oneself a moral coward. A state further from the dignity of a free man would be rather hard to imagine. It is as a way of exorcising this demon, of reclaiming for ourselves the dignity and courage and ethical self-confidence of free (wo)men that the bearing of personal arms, is, ultimately, most important.

This is the final ethical lesson of bearing arms: that right choices are possible, and the ordinary judgement of ordinary (wo)men is sufficient to make them.

Armalite announces how they'll deal with the AWB sunset (thanks to Steve Pegram): "the ArmaLite® Post-PostBan ™ Rifle Program."

Kristopher Barrett passes along this amusing photolog of colorful AR-15 furniture. Someone should inform the Pink Pistols.

Anton Sherwood has found an interesting advocacy of the right to keep and bear arms... as a campaign issue by liberal Democratic editorial cartoonist Ted Rall, "Democrats for Guns: Why Kerry Should Stand Up for the Second Amendment":

The best argument for coming out as a pro-gun nut relates to the need for an adjustment to the long-term strategy of the Democratic Party. For too long, both parties have treated the Constitution like a Chinese menu. Republicans whittle away at the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and smear opponents who exercise their First Amendment right to free speech. Democrats rail against the states rights expressed by the Tenth Amendment and absurdly argue that the placement of a comma reflects the founders' original intent to limit gun ownership to members of 18th century militias. Aside from its fundamental intellectual dishonesty, our politicians' take-some-leave-others attitude deviates from most citizens' belief that every section of the Constitution holds equal weight.

First of all, the Founding Fathers loathed a democracy, calling it a tyranny of the majority. The United States is not a democracy. The United States is a constitutional Repu