Posse Incitatus

A disturbance in the gun-blogging Force

Posts at the Smallest Minority, Rivrdog and Gut Rumbles bring to mind some of the Posse's thoughts on guns, cops and the ever-present fear (in some quarters) of a police state.

The most important statement in this entire episode comes from Gut Rumbles:

Don't EVER do that. I don't care if you are TOTALLY in the right at the time. Argue with a cop, and you're asking to go to jail. Take whatever [edited] they dish out, take it like a man, keep your [edited] mouth shut and fight it in court later if you believe that you were wronged. You cannot win a lip-contest with a cop. Don't even try. [expletives removed by the Posse]

To many folks, this is grating.  After all, police are there to serve and protect, right?

Well, yes.  But they are human beings and they have power, just as you in some way often have power over others.

One of the recurring meme's the anti-gun activists like to use is that police are somehow superior to the rest of the citizenry.  Their training or badges make them uniquely capable of using guns without going on psychopathic rampages.

Of course cops do commit crimes and they often use force improperly.

Most (but clearly not all) gun rights activists understand that cops are just people with a day job that involves carrying a gun.

They often have better than average skills that relate to that job, but otherwise are the same as everyone else.

We point this out because just as it is irrational to assume police are mythically endowed with the unique ability to use force flawlessly, it is also irrational to assume that they don't get angry, afraid or upset when law-abiding citizens give them crap.

When pulled over for a traffic stop, be polite.

It is worth it.

The Posse knows police officers and judges and all agree that the most important thing about being stopped is simply politeness.

Keep your hands on the wheel at all times, starting from the moment you pull over.  Don't get out your license or registration until the cop approaches your window and asks you to do it.  Speak only when spoken to.  Be friendly and polite.

Some folks have a problem with this.  They argue that police, in the role of public servants shouldn't deserve any kind of slack.

We have a words to describe these people:  rude jerks.

Police officers are doing a job.  Their job is to enforce the laws and traffic laws are a major part of it.

Happily, they have some discretion.  If you are polite, often they will let you go with a warning.

The behavior listed above isn't about kow-towing before jack-booted thugs, it is about making the police officer understand that you are safe and law-abiding.

When a cop makes a traffic stop, he has no idea if you are a wanted killer about to trade up to a death sentence on his corpse.  By remaining still, moving slowly and being calm, you reassure the officer that you aren't a threat.

Reassured and relaxed, the officer is often more than happy to cut you some slack.

It's that simple.

If you are carrying a gun legally, you have even more reason to be calm and courteous.  The Posse would fully expect a police officer to ask to see our revolver and we would carefully and slowly hand it over.

It is the least we can do to make the police officer's job go smoothly and safely.

In some states it's required, but offering to do so is hardly a bad way to go.

We have spoken with many cops and the overriding motivation for them is simply to know if you are one of the "good guys."

They don't want to lock up "good guys," they want to find criminals.  Once you show you are on their side, things get easier for everyone.

And yes, we have gotten out of a half-dozen tickets in this manner.

Now on to this part from Rivrdog:

This opinion puts us on a list. That list is maintained against the day when the leftists actually want to act out their fantasy of a totally-controlling government and a totally defenseless (unarmed) population. I am convinced that the list exists, if only in some unofficial form on a private computer or in a private notebook or two. It might exist, more boldly, in Federal Law Enforcement files. It does exist in field contact reports as they are coded and maintained by local police. I know, because I used to write these reports myself.

Get a grip.

One of the unlooked-for advantages of big government is that it loses track of itself.  These "lists" are too big, disorganized and otherwise impractical to worry about.

Look, no gun registry has ever solved a crime.  Canada has spent more than a billion on its and it still doesn't work right.

Is it possible that they can be used to confiscate guns?  Sure.  But they are more likely to waste huge sums of money simply trying to track all the data.

It is this type of paranoia that really scares people and convinces them that gun owners aren't normal.

Don't get us wrong:  we think gun registries are stupid, an infringement of liberty and a waste of resources.

The way to win the argument against them is to hit on the waste of valuable resources aspect.  That is what strikes home with most sensible people.

Your personal fear of black helicopters, government agents and midnight knocks at the door are not widespread.

So relax already.

CIA reform picks up speed

The Posse has long been suspicious of the Central Intelligence Agency's capabilities.

We do not mean in the "domestic spying/black helicopter sense," but rather in the "can't find own arse with both hands and a map" sense.

Thus we greet the news (via the hated Instapundit) that the new director is already firing people with great satisfaction.

A pause whilst we gloat:

Ms. Miscik's departure is the latest in a series of high-level ousters that have prompted unease within the C.I.A. since Mr. Goss took over as director of central intelligence in September. Of the officials who worked as top deputies to Mr. Goss's predecessor, George J. Tenet, at least a half-dozen have been fired or have retired abruptly, including the agency's No. 2 and No. 3 officials. Much of the top tier of the agency's clandestine service is also gone.

We love the "prompted unease" part.  Frankly, the blinding incompetence of the CIA has prompted unease in much of the world for the past three years.

Now given that this is a Republican administration, the Times has to find a negative angle to at least throw in there.  Noting in the first, oh say seven paragraphs how CIA has badly botched just about everything would be too much to ask for.

The problem is that no one really wants to go on record as defending career bureaucrats who can't be trusted with the burned-out kitchen match.

Happily, the NYT has an endless reservoir of anonymous former officials.

The former intelligence officials who agreed to discuss Ms. Miscik's plans did so on condition of anonymity. They defended her performance, saying that in 2003 she was quick to acknowledge the shortcomings of the agency's work on Iraq and adopted new safeguards intended to prevent future breakdowns.

Wow, that's great.  She was quick to acknowledge massive, wholesale failure - and promised not to do it again.

Does this work in the real world?

For example, when a doctor utterly flubs an operation, is simply saying "Whoa, dude, my bad" enough to exorcise the whole event?  Can acknowledging an error and then promising to do better really be good enough when national security is at stake?

While Miscik has only held her current position since 2002, she has been at CIA for 21 years - more than long enough to know the ropes and (presumably) make needed changes once she took over.

The new director is cleaning house and it's about damn time.  These career CIA analysts are partly whey terrorism was allowed to grow, why we were repeatedly blindsided by Al Qaeda and why our efforts even today are hampered by partisan back-biting and bureaucratic incompetence.

Here is yet another reason to be glad John Kerry lost:  can anyone imagine his appointees firing career employees for any reason?  Of course not.

Hiatus ending

Judging by our traffic, many readers are impatient with our holiday break.  Why there are tidal waves!  Elections!  A war to be won!

Indeed, for these reasons we plan on picking up the pace around here.

Lessons of the Tsunami

The Posse takes a break from our holiday isolation to note the obivious:  the awful destruction of this tsunami will not be remedied by aid organized by Al Qaeda.

The despots of Iran, Syria and North Korea will not provide humanitarian assistance to those suffering from this disaster.

The Fedayeen Saddam will not be flying in volunteers, bottled water and medical supplies.

No, those chores will fall upon their enemy, the "imperialist" United States.

American troops, so reviled only days ago, are now clamored for.

Efforts to rebuild Iraq are nothing more than swaggering, and aircraft carriers mere bluff and bluster.

But who on the Indian Ocean would now turn away a carrier battlegroup and a few battalions of Marines to keep order?

Actually, as Powerline notes, there are some regimes too blinded by hatred to accept a helping hand - if it happens to be Israeli.

Our prayers go with those suffering through this disaster and our blessings are upon those providing aid.

Merry Christmas!

The Posse wishes a merry Christmas to all our readers.

Santa was good to us this year, giving us something we didn't even know was out there but now consider to be one of the coolest things ever:  The entire WW I miniseries on DVD.

We first saw this nearly 20 years ago on PBS as filler for late Sunday afternoon.  We were immediately hooked.

Thanks to the wonders of DVD technology, it's now available in stereo sound.

Make no mistake about it, this is a must-have for any serious historian.

Unlike more recent films about the period, the CBS series (yes, it was produced by CBS during its golden age) does not use dubbed sound to back up the silent movies.  This really grates on us as it is no less dishonest than altering the film itself.

Movies of the period didn't have sound.

CBS got around this by using orchestral accompanyment and brilliant narration.

The result is something even better than Ken Burns' Civil War miniseries.  We highly recommend it.

Otherwise, the younger Posse members will probably keep us busy for the next few days.  We'll post when we can.

Merry Christmas to you and yours and may you have a safe and happy holiday.

Looking for Atlantis

Returning to our holiday theme of avoiding current events, the Posse would like to take you an excursion to find the lost continent of Atlantis.

Atlantis has long been a hobby of ours, dating back to our college days.

While the Posse can no longer call upon world-class collegiate libraries, the Internet is our willing servant. 

First, we must examine the evidence our earlier research produced.

One of the more intriguing books we have found is Secret of Atlantis.  It is out of print, but we were lucky enough to come across a copy by sheer accident.

The author, WW II German rocket scientist Otto Muck, makes a pretty compelling case that Atlantis can be found under the Azores Islands, and that the Dolphin Plateau was formed after an asteroid strike some 11,000 years ago.

While visiting the geology library, we stumbled across two working papers by R. Cedric Leonard.

His web site offers similar evidence and to our knowledge, none of it has been refuted.

Unfortunately, like many who study Atlantis, Leonard damages his reputation by offering speculation about ancient Indian flying machines.

We're not sure what it is about the study of Atlantis that causes people to go from solid scientific examination of the evidence into strange UFO-related theories.

It is clear that more research is needed - and it needs to be clear-eyed and open, not blinded by current academic dogma.

Otherwise, this fascinating field will remain the domain of occultists and other assorted weirdos.

If one is going to take Plato's accounts as anyway informative, one must first take them as accurate.  Arguing that the fellow didn't know geography and mistook 900 years for 9,000 years or was making the whole thing up isn't helpful.

A rational mind would first see if Plato could be proven false, not come up with reasons to believe him wrong to advance a pet theory.

This passage is fascinating:

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.

One of the striking things about this is how it accurately describes the Atlantic Ocean.

If there were a major island beyond the Straits of Gibraltar, the geography fits perfectly.

This is one of the big sticking points with "Oh the fellow got his directions wrong" schools of thought.  The Greeks knew where Crete was, and they damn well knew where Asia was - Persia had only invaded them from it twice.

The thing is, Plato wasn't alone.  Other authors also noted legends surrounding the eastern Atlantic, and Wikipedia offers a nice overview.

Yet even then, Wikipedia can't resist throwing in the usual fantasy/science fiction garbage and this topic always attracts.

Thus far, no conclusive archeological evidence has surfaced linking the Azores to an ancient culture in Atlantis.  This is often held as proof that Atlantis has to be somewhere else - somewhere ruins can be found.

There is a problem with this logic, of course.  No major research has yet been undertaken there.  We speak not of core samples or shallow dives, but a systematic, large-scale search similar to that which located the Bismarck and Titanic.

Until then, the scholarly obsession with "finding" Atlantis in the middle of prime Greek tourist destinations will only obscure the search for the truth.

A Christmas present for the defeatists

Before embarking on another Christmas shopping expedition, the Posse must again note the widespread defeatist hysteria surrounding the latest terrorist attack in Iraq.

Captain Ed nails this one (as usual). 

This attack (promiently displayed above the fold on most papers) is a gift for the defeatist lobby. 

This is the goal of the terrorists.  Though they may not realize it, administration critics and the anti-war movement are now nothing more than the propaganda arm of the terrorists.

Sixty years ago it was understood that no operation, no campaign, no undertaking could be entirely free of risk.  Even an enormously successful operation would entail heavy casualties. 

The German assault on Poland is generally held to be one of the most lop-sided victories in military history.  Germany attacked the Poles from three sides, enjoyed massive air superiority, superior numbers of tanks and enjoyed the support of the Soviet Union in the final stages of the campaign.

Given the fact that Poland was therefore sandwiched between the military might of Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR, one would expect the four-week campaign to be something of a walk-through for the Germans.

For all that, 16,000 German soldiers were killed in action.

One can argue that the form of combat has changed, or whether it is appropriate to compare the strategic situations, but the fact remains that the US casualty rate in Iraq is at world-historical lows.

The only way one can infer that the campaign is being mismanaged or is futile is by demanding a level of perfection that is unattainable in this world.

Either that, or - as we said earlier - the people in question want the war to be lost.

It is time to call these people what they are: defeatists, enemy sympathizers.

They have lost confidence in their country, its ideals and now openly hope for defeat.

Let us dispense with euphemisms and let the defeatists openly acknowledge that they are the press arm of our enemies, Tokyo Rose in modern garb.

Falling away from the tide of events

The Posse has been somewhat overcome by the spirit of the season.

We find ourselves paying less attention to current events and focusing more on our friends and loved ones.

Instead of our usual thorough sweep of the day's events, we are sleeping in, playing with the junior Posse members and keeping away from the computer.

That's probably why they call it Christmas vacation.

Yet even in our semi-disinterested state, the news of the world gets through to us.

The recent spate of Coalition deaths in Iraq are a grim reminder that peace remains elusive.

And contrary to the wishes of the anti-war left, a desire to hold hands and sing carols around the Festus pole with the Fedayeen Saddam won't make the killing stop.

Our enemies are the enemies of civilization itself.  They are the enemies of justice and peace as well.

To us, peace implies justice, an ordered system where people are allowed to live, work and play without fear of brutality.

The terrorists despise this concept of peace.  For them, "peace" is the absence of resistance, it is the freedom for them to do as they please while their subjects cower in abject terror.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was therefore "peaceful" in the sense that those who were being raped, robbed and murdered feared to fight back.

But it was not peaceful in any sense that we in the West can relate to.

Though our thoughts are increasingly filled with carols and the happiness of holidays gone by, the Posse remains grimly committed to seeing this through.

We honor and remember those who stand watch in distant lands so that our children may sleep safe and secure in their beds.

It is the greatest Christmas gift of all.

More thoughts on self-defense

Cube's comments on the previous post lead us to further thoughts.

We fully support personal ownership of machineguns.  Indeed, the Posse hopes to buy several at some point.  Guns are cool and there really is no upper limit to the number we intend to purchase.  Only our finances prevent us from having more small arms than the Soviet Union.

But self-defense is another issue and we strongly suggest you acquire more experience with guns before making a costly and possibly unnecessary purchase.

A used .38 revolver will do for 99 percent of your needs.

We say this based on our own experience, our own needs and the advice of our friends who include law enforcement officials and military veterans.

Any gun is better than no gun.  Use what works for you.

And lest there be any confusion, being prepared isn't being paranoid.

It is a perfectly rational desire to defend yourself.  Carrying a loaded gun in your pocket is every bit as sensible and prudent as having a spare tire in the trunk of your car.

However, there is a point where one can go too far.

Lugging around 30 rounds of ammunition "just in case" is a little bit much - just as carrying an entire set of tires in your car is overdoing it.

Thoughts on self-defense

Cube from Sandcastles and Cubicles hosted a discussion (linked by the hated Instapundit) on what gun was ideal for self-defense.

Many opinions poured in, and the Glockheads were out in force (not surprising, since they have their own news group).

The Posse was (as usual) in the minority, but this only reinforces our conviction that when it comes to self-defense, many seasoned gun owners still need to get a clue.

Guns are about options, nothing more.

The goal of self-defense is, as the words suggest, to defend one's self.

It isn't to take down the bad guy with one shot, or to pour forth a stream of hot lead sufficient to suppress a battalion of the Fedayeen Saddam.

It is to act quickly, forcefully, to save a life.

For this reason the arguments that citizens should carry "at least" 20 to 30 rounds of ammunition strikes us as ludicrous, verging on paranoia.

A concealed carry gun is the last resort.  If you live somewhere where you think you may need that many bullets, buy an armored car and keep a rifle on the passenger seat.

The Posse carries the eminently sensible Taurus 85 Total Titanium.  We load it with .38 Special +P jacketed hollow point.

Why do we use this gun?

It fits our hand nicely.

It is easy to shoot.

It is reliable to a fault.

It is small.

It is lightweight.

We can carry it everywhere.

Some of these "experts" in Cube's comments asked what would happen if our five shots were used up - hinting that at the very least we should carry another five rounds to reload.

For a police officer or private detective, this is eminently sensible.

But the Posse isn't in law enforcement and has no intention of starting on an ad-hoc freelance basis.

Our five shots are more than enough to get us the hell away from trouble.

They are five options, nothing more.

Make no mistake: when confronted with life-threatening danger, we intend to get the hell away from it.  It is only if this is not possible or safe that we will - as a last resort - use a gun.

The purposes of our humble, underpowered and underappreciated little revolver is to give us an option other than surrender or fighting against impossible odds.

Are there circumstances when we might need more firepower?  Absolutely.

We wouldn't want to rely on one to get us through an infantry assault.

But that wasn't what was under discussion.

A self-defense firearm should be small and light, so you can always carry it easily.

It should be reliable and easy to maintain, so it works when you need it to.

It should be something you feel comfortable shooting, so you will practice with it.  If you can't hit the target, all the firepower in the world is useless.

The last considerations should be how hard it hits and how many bullets it carries.

There are plenty of stories of old ladies fending off thugs with .22 pistols, or elderly gentlemen defending themselves with an "underpowered" .25 Auto.

If the gun suits you, go with it.

Some know-it-all on the Internet is not the person who will use this gun in extremis.  The only person who matters at the moment of decision is you.

Experts have their place.  Unscrupulous gun salesmen are happy to push crappy guns that aren't reliable and won't work when needed just to make a buck.  As in any other market, there are some jerks out there who only want to make a quick sale.

Soliciting opinions on the Internet therefore makes sense - but only to a point.

In the end, the choice of gun is intensely personal.  We know quite a few respected shooters who use almost every type of gun and we respect their choices.

Glocks, Colts, SigSauers and such all appeal to someone.  If it works for you, go with it.

But there is no "one true gun" before which all others must bow down.