First, there is this from The Gazette:

Hunters who threatened to boycott Colorado if gun control legislation was approved may have been shooting blanks.

Indeed, so far, numbers are up about 4 percent on draws and sales of leftover licenses have been on target with expectations, said Randy Hampton, spokesman for Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Actual numbers, however, won’t be available until about mid-November, he cautioned.

“The majority of non-resident hunting occurs during our second or third rifle seasons,” Hampton said.

The second season runs from Oct. 19-27 and the third season runs from Nov. 2-10.

The biggest negative impact on license sales may come from flooding in northeastern Colorado.

Then there is this from Red State, albeit a couple of months ago:

The recent gun control measures approved in Colorado have already taken a toll on local individuals, businesses, and  communities throughout the state. Those who work in the outdoor recreation industry, along with entire towns and counties that center around hunting and fishing, have been the first to experience the real economic effect of the new firearm regulations.

Tom Bowers is an outdoor recreation guide and the owner of Colorado’s High Lonesome Outfitter & Guides located in Yampa. Bowers shared with Media Trackers Colorado how the new gun legislation has already affected his business.

“Many of my hunting, fishing, horseback riding, and rafting clients are choosing to recreate in other states because of the new laws. Before the [gun control] legislation passed I got 15-30 calls from potential clients a day, now I get less than 5.”

Eric Layman with Western Colorado Outfitters in Montrose experienced the same drop off in business bookings, reservations, and correspondence as Bowers.

In a normal year, Bowers and his High Lonesome Outfitters guide between 35 and 40 big game hunters. This year, he said he would be lucky to get 20-25. One big game client, whom he has served as a guide for 15 years, told Bowers that he will not be rebooking or coming back to Colorado. Bowers recalled the conversation with the client, who told him: “It is not because of you, it is because of your Governor. I am not giving any money to that state”.

Bowers’ clients who booked before the new laws still plan to come this season, but many of them have told him it will be the last time they come to Colorado for any kind of outdoor recreation, even beyond hunting.

As such, Bower’s losses are not limited to hunting, as he attests to the fact that many of the fisherman and rafters he guides will no longer be returning to Colorado to recreate either.  He explained:  “Now we are a gun control state. My type of clients think if they come to the state of Colorado they are going to be violating gun laws.”

Layman, from Western Colorado Outfitters, echoed the fact that the boycott is spreading far beyond the hunting crowd, saying that while “the hunter forums show comments indicating that the boycott is in full effect, even summer visitors and skiers are joining in.”

I wouldn’t otherwise even bring this up, except that the Gazette article comes off as so snarky, superior and insulting that it caught my attention.

It might be difficult to tell at this stage of the season, but I would appreciate any input from readers (in the comments or send me an e-mail) with either anecdotal evidence or statistical information concerning the boycott.

You all know about the attack in New York by the motorcycle gang called Hollywood Stuntz, so I won’t repeat that tale here.  I remarked to my wife after this happened that the poor man’s family was endangered as a result of the incident, not to mention his own health and safety.  If this had happened to me and my family, I would have quickly squashed Mr. Hollywood Stuntz like a bug, run over his machine, and run over all of his buddies and their machines in order to get away – right after I blew a hole in his whole body organs with one of my handguns.  Mr. Hollywood Stuntz would be dead now, and burying him would have required picking his multiple pieces off of the road.

And of course, it has been (correctly) pointed out that New York has some of the most draconian laws on the books in America regarding guns (when I say that I would have run straight over Mr. Stuntz after I shot him, I mean if he had done that to me around these parts, since I won’t visit New York city or even fly over or drive through the state due to the gun laws).  So New York would willingly submit you and your family to this kind of volence, and then prohibit you from protecting your family from it.

Great place, right?  Makes you want to hop right in your car and pay a visit to the empire state on your vacation, right?  Oh, and in the most recent news of just how bad this gets in New York, here is New York’s finest as they saw it first hand.

An off-duty, NYPD undercover officer was among the pack of motorcyclists who chased a Financial District family up the West Side Highway — and he stood by as the dad was hauled from his car and beaten, The Post has learned.

The unidentified officer only came forward Wednesday night, four days after the caught-on-video biker predation, and is described as a motorcycle hobbyist who rides with Front Line Soldiers, a New Rochelle-based group that also counts several other cops among its members, a source said.

Internal Affairs is investigating whether those cops, too, were among the bikers, and whether any of them are also witnesses to the beating that left Internet exec Alexian Lien bleeding on the pavement as his wife and toddler daughter cowered inside their black Range Rover.

“It is does not appear that he got involved at the scene,” one law enforcement source said of the undercover.

“He didn’t want to blow his cover,” said a source — though he was not investigating those riders.

The undercover has now lawyered up, the source added.

Lawyered-up.  Yea, I’ll bet.  I think the police use that as a term of derision for us normal folk if we refuse to speak to them.  “Didn’t want to blow his cover,” although he was not investigating those riders.  Let that wash over you again.

That means that he was hanging with the Hollywood Stuntz gang for fun and as his hobby and interests.

Is it possible for this story to get any better – or worse?

Reason:

California Gov. Jerry Brown will soon decide whether to sign a bill that expands his state’s “assault weapon” ban to cover any centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine. That’s a very broad category, the National Rifle Association notes, since “millions of semi-automatic rifles have magazines that can be removed with the push of a button,” including “classic hunting rifles like the Remington Woodsmaster, Browning BAR, and the Ruger 99/44, among many others.” The actual language of the bill, S.B. 374, refers rather confusingly to “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.” The NRA argues that the bill’s definition of a fixed magazine—”an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action”—is ambiguous, since “‘disassembly of the firearm action’ is undefined and nobody (least of all the legislators who voted for it) knows what it means, or for that matter even what a firearm ‘action’ actually is.” But the intended target seems to be any rifle with a detachable magazine that fires rounds of a caliber bigger than .22 (generally the upper limit these days for cheaper, flimsier rimfire cartridges). Hence Fox News says the bill “exempts .22-caliber rim fire rifles,” although the legislation does not directly address caliber.

The author, Jacob Sullum, isn’t kidding.  Read the sentence lifted directly out of the bill.

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.

They’ve put a double-negative into the sentence.  What this sentence means is anyone’s guess, and yours is as good as mine.  Farther into the bill, they’ve outlawed pistol grips on shotguns.

But back to the issue of hunting rifles, presumably (since the bill is a mass of confusion and no one knows for sure), bolt action rifles are “assault weapons” if they have a detachable magazine (and some do).

Hey.  No one said totalitarians were smart people.  They’re just control freaks.

The Blaze:

The Republican leadership, however, has  ”drunk the Kool-aid regarding the Hispanic vote believing they will get more votes by getting this issue off the table and Republican leadership, under enormous pressure from Corporate Lobbyists  – also want to increase foreign labor through the visa program.”

We’ve discussed this before, this mistaken notion that Hispanics will ever vote GOP by any significant margin.  I explained:

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

Hispanics are not historically and ideologically aligned with what the GOP is supposed to be.  To point to Roman Catholicism and claim that Hispanics will vote GOP because of socially conservative viewpoints misses the bigger picture of the state of Catholicism in South and Central America.  It is a synthesis, or a hybrid mixture, of Catholicism, superstition, Marxism, and in some cases evil “patron saints” for the cartel criminals.

The analogy isn’t drinking the Kool Aid.  Right now the GOP is alive, although just barely.  The folks who drank the Kool Aid died.  And so too will the GOP if they push their plans for immigration in quest of the Hispanic votes that will never materialize.

Kurt Hofmann:

Indeed, Mr. Gelman, by all means, re-brand the position of forcible citizen disarmament advocates as a demand for “no guns.” Boldly acknowledge what the gun ban groups no longer dare admit.

Kurt deals with a writer who advocates the complete ban on guns.  The Washington Times carried something similar (one wonders if these kooks plan their attacks or if this is just happenstance).

Why don’t we just take guns out of the picture entirely?

Why don’t we just halt the possession, manufacture and importation of firearms altogether? But not just for civilians, for everyone.

The writer goes on to advocate the absence of firearms for the police, armed forces and  all hunters.  The police won’t need firearms if the public doesn’t have any.  The armed forces won’t have to repel invasions – we haven’t had to do that for hundreds of years.  Hunters will learn to use bows.

Forget the Pollyanna universe in which this pitiful soul lives, the one in which he can remove all sin by removing machines from our lives.  We would need to ban assault hammers too.

One paragraph sticks out and bears debunking for readers.

Using the term “high powered” rifle is also ineffective and incorrect. The “high powered assault rifles” are mainly 5.56×45 chambered weapons, which is a round designed by NATO to allow for low recoil, making soldiering easier for smaller framed individuals in NATO allied militaries to wield the rifles. These weapons were designed to wound so that other enemy soldiers would be forced to tend to their fallen comrades, effectively taking them out of the fighting.

There are so many problems with this paragraph I don’t know where to begin.  First of all, I don’t own an assault rifle because mine doesn’t have selective fire.  Second, we are led to believe that we use the 5.56 mm because of the “little people.”  This is so absurd as to be laughable.

The point of the cartridge is moderate recoil which makes it easier to obtain proper sight picture for the next round, especially with selective fire weapons.  Finally, as we have discussed before, the 5.56 mm round yaws in flight, shattering upon impact to leave multiple wound tracks.  To say that the intent was to wound rather than kill is patently false and silly.

When gun grabbers attempt to discuss guns they look silly and sophomoric because they don’t know what they’re talking about.  But it’s nice to have some honesty.  As we’ve also seen, an outright gun ban and confiscation is what the folks at Daily Kos want as well.

UPDATE: Kurt points out that the Washington Times piece was parody.  Very good parody.

I’m not going to get detailed in why I am saying what I am about to say.  Go and read this post – Encryption Via A One-Time Pad – at Dan Morgan’s place.  Also, all of this is courtesy of Mosby via WRSA.

The post is interesting, especially the more rudimentary methods of communication, which I think are far superior to the high tech methods.  Then again, this kind of stuff is interesting to me, and perhaps few others.  I suspect that this kind of thing would be useful under certain circumstances, but not me, and not right now.

If I had ever wanted to be anonymous, that ship left port years ago.  I have been tracked by CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, DHS, Department of State and *.mil network domains ever since I posted real examples of the sinfully restrictive ROE in Iraq and Afghanistan (from folks who were there).  I’ve seen it from network domains that visited my site.  Eventually, I lost interest in that and simply assume that I’m being watched all of the time on everything.  Again, that horse left the barn a long time ago.  I cannot ever be anonymous again.  I have given some thought to how I might return to normal life again, but only thoughts.

But regarding the post on encryption, the issue of random number generators comes up.  Morgan says some of the random number generators are “pseudo-random number generators.”

I have to get all pointy head here, and I fear that the more I do this, the larger the chance is that I give away who I am and what I do.  I just want to keep that separate from my blogging if I can.  But here it goes.  There are guys who do their entire post-doctoral work on developing random number generators at the National Labs for Monte Carlo computer codes.  There are tests for randomness – ten in all the last time I read the papers and listened to the presentations.

Listen.  All random number generators are pseudo-random number generators.  None are truly random.  With a given random number seed, a random number generator will generate the same sequence of numbers every time it is launched.  Monte Carlo computer code users are constantly aware of whether they are exceeding the random number stride with any specific calculation.  There are tricks used as work-arounds if they do, such as choosing a random number seed that happens to be different than the default value, or different than the one they chose earlier.  But the simple question is this: Do you understand that you cannot just launch the application and assume that you get “random numbers?”

But also listen to me on this.  The folks that propose to rule us have access to all of these random number generators.  If you use a random number generator like it’s a black box and generate the same sequence of “random numbers” every time you use it, your communications will become predictable.

What’s the point?  Just be aware that you cannot use a piece of technology as a black box.  You have to be at least semi-educated in order to make proper use of any technology, and don’t assume that you are any more than one step ahead of your opponent, even if you’ve changed what you did since the last time you did it.

Okay.  End of pointy head lecture.

The New Yorker:

Two more thoughts about gun control: one practical and immediate, the other more abstract and academic, though with a practical fork in its tail. The practical comes from a recent discussion with my father, about, of all things, shooting raccoons. The Gopnik family seat, such as it is, is nowhere near Manhattan, Upper West or East Side, but rather a farm in remote rural Ontario, where my parents live surrounded by crops, animals, and pests—and indeed by farmers who need and use rifles. When I was talking to my father there last weekend, we discussed a recent raccoon infestation, and how he had called on a neighbor with a rifle to hightail it over to shoot the five unfortunate masked marauders beneath the back porch. (My dad buried them afterward, further proof that English professors can be eminently practical people.) My dad is actually a pretty good shot, and could have done it himself—but he had not finished the paperwork for his gun.

What onerous tasks are involved in getting a gun for the necessary work of rural life in Canada? Well, you have to do that paperwork, fill out an application for a license, take a gun-safety course, and then you have your raccoon-shootin’ rifle for the grim work of keeping off pests. (There are some other “controls”; if you have a longstanding dispute, for instance, your spouse is informed.) Does anything in this interfere with the liberty of the individual or the exigencies of rural life? No one disputes that there are sane reasons for ordinary people to need a rifle. But there is no imaginable, meaningful sense in which Canadians, or Australians, are “less free” when it comes to guns because they have to take a safety course before they use one. People who really need guns—and many, my folks among them, do—can get them and use them safely, while there are hedgerows, so to speak, against impulsive purchases or unsafe or frankly homicidal use.

What we can learn from Canada is how to legislate common sense without violating anyone’s liberty—unless you imagine that anyone’s liberty depends on having as many weapons as he wants whenever he wants them.

Why yes, Adam, and I don’t have to imagine it.  I should be able to have as many weapons as I want, whenever I want – and I should add, whatever kind I want.  It goes hand in hand with my liberty.  My liberty also includes things like not having the federal government collect my wages by the power of a badge and gun, not having to disperse my hard-earned wealth to those who don’t work, not bailing out fat cats and corrupt cities, not having my e-mails and phone coversations reviewed by government employees, and not having my medical care dictated to me by government bureaucrats.

Justice Stevens and I don’t see eye to eye.

Justice Stevens, in his eloquent, essential dissent in the Supreme Court’s “Heller” case, shows that the history of the Second Amendment “makes abundantly clear that the Amendment should not be interpreted as limiting the authority of Congress to regulate the use or possession of firearms for purely civilian purposes.”

Adam, you think this dissent is essential because you’re a totalitarian, and I’m not.  Progressives are totalitarians, each and every one of you.  You and he can twist words that read “shall not be infringed” and turn it into “may be infringed at any time and in any way because we want to.”  Stevens and you are liars, Adam.  At the root of things, you’ve just dishonest.  And that bit about “purely civilian purposes” is important.  In order to be consistent, Stevens would have to say that Congress does not in fact have the authority to regulate weapons not for civilian use.  There is no check on the executive under his schema.

Do you understand this essential point, Adam?

Providence Journal:

The Rhode Island GOP’s attempt to raise money by raffling off guns, including Smith & Wesson’s version of the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle linked to the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre, is stirring controversy even within state Republican ranks.

State Republican Chairman Mark Smiley said the winners of the party’s gun raffle this Sunday at the South County Rod & Gun Club will have to pass background checks.

“The weapon will be held, and the winner given a certificate,” Smiley said. “That certificate will be redeemable at the gun shop that donated the weapon. After the winner passes both state and federal background checks and has waited the required week, they will take possession of the weapon.”

Nonetheless, three of the potential major party candidates for governor panned the idea, including Cranston Mayor Allan Fung, the potential GOP candidate. The attorney general and his potential Republican opponent also criticized the idea.

Among the words the high-profile critics used to describe this latest GOP fundraising tack: “outrageous,” “disgusting,” “insensitive.” A sampling of their comments:

“While I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, as a former criminal prosecutor I have strong reservations against the raffling of a semiautomatic weapon,” Fung said. “This is not something that I would ever do to raise campaign funds.”

Do you understand now?  Do you still believe that there is any real difference between the Republicans and Democrats?  Folks, I just don’t know else to say it other than to keep pointing out the obvious.  Some places are irrecoverable.  They cannot be saved.  Rhode Island is just such a place, and if you’re a liberty loving gun owner who lives in Rhode Island, your best bet is to get out of there to a free state.  Quickly.