Month: August 2019

 

In a recent post, among other things, I pointed out that violent crime rates had actually fallen dramatically since the early 90’s.  I got called “delusional” for my pains.  So, here are the facts.

Politifact, a group that claims to be a non-partisan fact checking organization but has repeatedly demonstrated a strong left wing bias. Has kindly compiled the following from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (I cite them here since no-one can realistically claim a right-wing bias):

You will note that the numbers peaked around 1992-1993 and have fallen since.  Thre was a slight “bubble” around 2005 to 2007 after which it fell again and plateaued at just under 400 per 100,000, a rate not seen since 1971.

Some will look and say “Ah hah! The chart stops at 2019 on an upward trend.  Surely crime has skyrocketed since then!”

Well, actually, no.  Going directly to the FBI’s own report and compiling the numbers from 1998 to the present (which, incidentally, serves as a check on that portion of the above graph), we get:

Yes, there was a slight “bump” in 2015 and 2016, but the violent crime rate fell again in 2017.  The FBI has a preliminary report for 2018 which shows that violent crime has fallen an additional 4.2 percent, so from 382.9 per 100,000 to 366.8 per 100,000, or some 50,000 fewer violent crimes than in 2016.

So, contrary to media portrayals, violent crime is not on the rise.  Nor is murder itself on the rise (the rate fell 6.7% in 2018 from 5.3 per 100,000 to about 4.9 per 100,000).  But, boy, you wouldn’t know that to listen to the news or to certain political pundits.

I have claimed that this fall in violent crime rate was occurring at a time when more people were permitted to carry more guns in more places than ever before.  Doubt that?  Check out this video:

That’s just the passage of “shall issue” or the blanket removal of licensing requirements (often called “Constitutional Carry”).  It does not include things like Indiana passing laws reducing the number of places where licensed individuals can carry:  forbidding businesses from having a “no guns in locked cars” policy (they can forbid people from bringing guns into the business itself but cannot stop them from being armed going to and from work), permitting licensed individuals to leave guns out of sight in locked cars in school parking lots, forbidding cities, counties, and townships from prohibiting guns on most public property, and so on.  Other states have similarly reduced restrictions on where people can carry–Utah and Texas, for instance, permitting carry on college campuses, several states removing restrictions on carry in places of worship, and so on.

Now, one might dispute that the increased ability of citizens to carry caused the decrease in violent crime, what cannot be disputed is that the increased ability to carry most certainly did not cause an increase.  Indeed, for the folk supporting gun control, that the restrictions on people being permitted to carry and the actual rates of violent crime have gone in opposite directions demonstrates conclusively that, at best, giving them every benefit of every doubt (something they are not willing to grant me and those like me), other factors are far, far more important than such restrictions.

In the absolute best case, from the folk promoting gun control as a means of crime control, focusing on gun control is a distraction from dealing with real issues that affect the rates of violent crime.

The “rank and file” individual, I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt on this issue.  They have been told things which are untrue and for whatever reason have not dug deeply into the factual basis (or lack thereof) of those things.  After all, there are only so many hours in the day and they can’t investigate everything that crosses their paths. (However, when they won’t listen when the factual basis is brought to their attention?  Well, that’s on them.)

The folk of the political class, however?  They get no such benefit of the doubt.  The folk in leadership positions in various anti-gun groups, media pundits, politicians–especially politicians–are only ignorant of the reality if they deliberately choose to be (call it “reckless disregard for the truth”).

They have their own reasons for wanting to disarm the American people and it’s not reducing crime.

 

 

I would say getting back in shape but, really, I never was in what I would consider good shape.  Closest I ever game was late eighties when I got serious about bicycling but for various reasons that didn’t last.

I have heard it said that nothing is more boring than someone else’s diet or someone else’s exercise program.  On the other hand, I’ve also heard people getting motivation form other people’s progress.  So, for the former, skip it if you gotta.  The latter?  This is for you.

The biggest problem I’ve always had was a combination of trying too much, too quickly, and the related one of setting unrealistic goals. (Hey, I grew up wanting to be a superhero, which is pretty much the definition of unrealistic goals.)

So, when I decided I needed to do something about the encroaching years and try to actually get in something resembling some sort of shape I wanted to start gradually, have a modest but chartable progression (it’s easier to stay motivated if I can actually point to measureable progress).

Modest, but continuous progress is nothing to sneeze at. (Just ask the famous tortoise.) Back when I was in Judo one of the parents of a younger student said “If you start with just one pushup a day, add one each week, at the end of a year you’re doing more than fifty.”  And that’s exactly what I’ve been doing.  Oh, I didn’t start with one pushup.  I was a couple of months into the year when I started the program but I took the number of weeks we were in (my calendar app numbers the weeks) and used that as my starting point.  I have religiously added one each week so, as of today, I’m doing 34 every day. (As a point of comparison, that’s enough for a 37 year old to pass the push-up portion of the Army’s physical fitness test, just as a point of comparison.)

I’ve added other exercises to the program as I’ve gone along.  One is a special kind of half-squat that I do specifically to help with ice skating.  In ice skating class the instructor explained that you want to keep ankles, hips, and shoulders all in a line.  When a person normally bends their knees, they tend to push their hips back and lean forward with their upper body.  That is to be avoided on the ice as the weight shift does bad things to your balance and where your weight is centered on the blades.

So, what I do is stand with my back just brushing against a wall–not leaning against it, just barely in contact.  I then bend my knees lowering my body and just barely keeping my back touching the wall.  I can’t go down very deep with those squats because my ankles will only flex so far and I need to keep feet flat on the floor (again, I’m working on ice skating posture with this).  Then slowly back up.  Again, one for each week of the year.  34 this week.

I have added in a couple of “core” exercises on the same one for each week of the year principle.  I finish with a couple of stretches.  Nothing fancy, just some mild stretches of the major muscle groups with particular attention paid to my waist and hamstrings.

So far it’s been working.  My energy levels are up.  I used to actually have difficulty putting on my skates because bending to tighten them compressed my stomach enough that I couldn’t breathe.  Not a problem now.  It may not seem like much but it’s progress to me.  And I’ve been keeping the full routine up for four months now.

Add in that I’ve been watching my diet.  Very low carb to make it easier to keep my diabetes under control. (I don’t really call it “keto” because some of the things involved in that I don’t worry about, just keep net carbs down.) I keep a complete food diary where I mark down not just what I eat but how much and the fat, carbs, and protein in it so I know, really know, how much is going into my system.  No fooling myself about how much I’m eating.  Simply having to think about it, so I can record it, helps prevent “cheating”.

The result is that I’ve lost about 30-40 lbs since I started getting serious (about the same time I started ice skating).    And I can go half an hour or more on the ice before having to take a break where before, once around the rink (or even only halfway around) and my feet hurt too much to continue without a break.

So, fingers crossed, things are getting better on the health and fitness front.

In the past I have addressed the idea of “if you don’t like it, then move…” For many people there are endless options of the government they claim to want.  For those of us who want to live under a Constitutional Republic honoring individual liberty with the rights of those individuals held sacrosanct there’s no place to go.

Still, when you suggest that someone should pull up stakes and move to a country more in line with their own claimed desires they get offended.  Okay, fair enough.

However, we also have this.  We have Ilhan Omar, an immigrant congresswoman, claiming that living in an “ugly” America is an “Everyday assault” and that this ugliness is “ingrained in America.”

Okay then, Omar, why did you come here?  This is more than just “if you don’t like it, leave.” You chose to come here.  There are 195 countries in the world.  One hundred ninety-four of them aren’t the United States.  Surely there were other options.  You came here.

Further, available evidence is that you married your own biological brother in an effort to allow him to come here as well.  While you might have had the excuse of not knowing what America was like before coming here, why you would do something like that after obtaining citizenship in the US?  Do you hate your brother so much that you wanted to inflict such a hateful place on him?

So why?  Why come here?   Why make the effort to bring your brother here?  Why, of your own free will, come to such a terrible place?  It’s not like you didn’t have other options.  Your brother, after all, was in the UK, not the US.  Surely the UK would have been an option for you as well and a much better choice than the US given your detestation of the US.  So why didn’t you go there instead?

I mean, I can think of reasons.  None of them speak well of you or your intentions, but I can think of them.  So, help me out here.  Why?  What possible good reason did you have to come, of your own free will, to a place that you detest so?

Why?

 

This is something I knocked together as a low carb one-dish meal.  Strictly speaking, “shepherd’s pie” should use lamb or mutton but as those are rather expensive for folk who don’t actually raise sheep, and have culls to provide meat, we use beef here.

Ingredients:

• 1 lb ground beef (the cheap kind 73% lean 27% fat)
• 3/4 cup chopped onions
• 2 cup (1 can) beef broth
• 1 cup cut green beans
• 1 tbsp thyme
• 1 tbsp crushed rosemary
• 2 tbsp garlic powder
• about 1 tbsp xantham gum
• 6 cups riced cauliflower
• 4 eggs large
• 1 cup grated mozzarella cheese

Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175C).

In a large saucepan brown the ground beef over medium heat.  Do not drain.  Add the onions and cook, stirring occasionally, until the onions are transparent.   Add the next five ingredients and bring to a boil.  Stir in the xantham gum.  Let simmer for 3-5 minutes to thicken and combine flavors.

While the meat sauce is simmering, combine the cauliflower, eggs an mozzarella in a large mixing bowl.  Mix well.

Transfer the meat sauce to a two quart casserole dish.  Cover with the cauliflower mixture.

Bake at 350F (175C) for 25-30 minutes.

Remove from oven.  Let sit for 10-15 minutes before serving.  Serves 6.

About 32 g fat, 6 grams net carbs, and 23 grams protein per serving.  About 400 calories.

 

Yes, I’ve been continuing to make progress so there’s stuff to talk about.

In class we’ve been somewhere between “Basic 3” and “Basic 4” in the “Learn to Skate USA” skill level progression.  When I looked at the “official” curriculum, I noticed that we were doing a number of Level 4 items (Forward outside edges, forward inside edges, forward crossovers) when I hadn’t learned most of the Level 3 stuff.  Now that’s entirely doable.  In many cases it’s not a strict progression–after all, back when I was a kid I was doing forward crossovers and edges (I cannot emphasize enough, it’s not like riding a bike) without having learned to skate backward at all.

At Level three the only things I could have said to have learned at an appropriate level for where I’m at (which is a long way short of “mastering”) were forward half-swizzle pumps on a circle and forward stroking showing correct use of the blade.

So, I decided I needed to go in and fill out the Basic 3 stuff so the lack wouldn’t come back to bite me later.

First thing I started on was “Slaloms”.  The class where that was being introduced to my daughter and me was one where I took a bad fall, landed with my right curled up under me so my full weight came down on my ankle.  Yeah.  I was done that for that day, that week, and the next week as well.

So, during “public skate” I went to one end of the rink and tried slaloms.  Properly done, they look like this:

I surprised myself by actually managing it.  I was, of course, much clumsier and far less graceful than the young lady in the video but I did manage it.

The remaining techniques that I needed all involved backward skating (backward one foot glides, backward snowplow stop, and two foot turn on a circle forward to backward).  I’m able to do it, but not very well.  I start to feel like I’m going to overbalance backward, overcompensate, and end up dragging the toe picks (those “teeth” at the front of figure skating blades) which brings me to a grinding halt.  The trick is to keep my weight right over the center of the blades.  And I think mostly that takes practice.

There are two techniques that I have been learning for going backwards.  The first is a “backward swizzle”.  Done right, it looks like this:

Again, I’m nowhere near as graceful as the young lady.  I get there, albeit with many a grinding halt from dragging the toe picks.  Also, I have trouble with the “bending the knees” portion of that.  Strong like willow.  Limber like oak.  But, working on that with off ice exercises.

The other method of moving backward I’ve been learning is the “backward wiggle.”  Once again, done properly it looks something like this:

And, once again, I’m nowhere near as graceful as that young lady.  I use more separation between my feet, which gives me more “push” as I go back and forth.  If I can learn to stay off the toe picks I’ll be doing this pretty well.

So what I’ve been doing at public skate is just going to one end of the rink or the other.  There’s a red line across the end (part of the hockey markings) that I use as a guide.  I do slaloms across, then do one of the backward techniques back.  Back and forth, just practicing those techniques.  I’ve gotten pretty good at the slaloms just over the one weekend but the backward’s techniques?  Let’s just say that they need work.

Occasionally, however, I’ll actually get a bit of momentum going backward, manage to avoid getting on the toe picks, and I’ll try lifting one foot for a backward one foot glide.

It should look like this:

Let’s just say it doesn’t.  My best, so far, is about 1 second.

So, practice, practice practice.

We’ll get there.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPz21cDK7dg

A short story

Nobody fishes the stretch of river called South Bight.  There are no fish there.

Rudy Donne decides to ignore this folk wisdom.  After all, if no one’s been fishing there for years, perhaps the fish have returned.  Instead of fish, Rudy finds something else, something fearsome, for which he has no name.

Now, Rudy is in a race for for his very survival from something which nothing seems to stop.

 

I get that question whenever I object to more “gun control” as a response to the latest tragedy.  I have long held, and continue to hold, the position that more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners is not the answer to mass murder.  It doesn’t work.  It just leaves the law abiding helpless in the face of criminal violence.

First, let’s dispense with that “end”. I hate to tell you this, but you can’t end them.  “Gun control” certainly cannot.  France’s strict gun control did not prevent Charlie Hebdo nor the 2015 Paris attacks.  India’s draconian gun laws did not prevent Mumbai.  Norway’s gun laws did not stop the spree shooter there.  And so on.

“Ending” is an unachievable target.  No matter what you do, somebody, somewhere, who intends to harm others–particularly if the’re looking at going out in a blaze of “glory” (with “infamy” serving for their purpose)–will find a way to do it.  When you use it as a justification for restrictions on the law abiding there is no end to that.  No restrictions will ever be enough.  So it will always be an excuse for more restrictions.  And if at any point anyone objects, you can do then as you do now and say “Don’t you care about the victims of gun crime?”

Sorry if you don’t like that, but the truth hurts sometimes.

So, can’t end them, not entirely, but you can improve the situation.  In fact, you can improve it a lot.

“Ah, hah!” you say. “Gun control, right?”

Nope.  In fact, gun control is a large part of the problem.  The vast, vast majority of mass shootings of the “spree killer” type (which is what most people think of when you say “mass shooting” and is different in causes and dynamics than the “domestic murder-suicide” types and the “gang war” types, both of which require different approaches to reduce) happen in gun free zones.  The El Paso shooter, in his manifesto (of which only his rant on immigration got widespread publication in the media; for some reason they didn’t bother to mention his rant on the environment and his rant on business) said:

Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA (sic) Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfll (sic) your super soldier COD [Call of Duty first person shooter video game] fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.

More than 90 percent of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.  Numbers vary depending on source (which can vary in how they’re counted) but the figures I’ve seen range from 92 to 97 percent.  Yes, even the Fort Hood massacre, on an Army base, and the Norfolk Navy Yard shooting, Navy base, were “gun free zones” for this purpose–the military forbade personnel from being armed unless they were doing so as part of their duties–Stateside that meant Military Police on duty.

These shootings tend to stop once the shooter encounters armed resistance.  Indeed, as I have noted before, FBI studies covering 2000 to 2017 had 33 cases of spree killers where armed citizens were present.  In 25 of them, the armed citizen totally stopped the attack.  In an additional 6 the armed citizens reduced the number of casualties.  That’s 94% of the time the situation is made better by armed citizens being present.  And what about the claim that people “getting caught in the crossfire” would make the situation worse?  Those same reports also give the number of innocents killed by the armed citizens in those incidents.  It’s a surprising number, all told.  That number?

Zero.

So, with that information in hand, here’s my approach to dealing with mass shootings:

1. End “gun free zones.” The idea that forbidding law abiding American Citizens from being armed for their own protection somehow makes them safer is as ridiculous in specific locations as it is in general.  As we’ve seen, it only makes those places attractive targets for those who don’t care that it’s illegal.  If they’re going to break laws on murder breaking laws forbidding them to carry weapons at the place they plan to commit the murder isn’t going to stop them.  It’s ridiculous.  It’s patently absurd.
2. End this practice of “may issue” on state licenses to carry firearms.  Making the exercise of a Constitutional right dependent on the often arbitrary decision of government officials is a violation of basic human rights (the right to life is meaningless without the right to defend that life and the right to defend that life is meaningless without the right to effective means to defend that life). “May issue” which is generally worded as needing to show “good cause” generally works out in practice to issue only to those who are politically connected in the local power structure.  It’s wrong.  Stop it.
   If you must have licensing (the Constitution and the Second Amendment should be all the license required but I recognize that’s not politically achievable at this time) then it needs to be “shall issue.” The State has to show good-cause to deny, not the other way around.
3. Nationwide reciprocity.  The Constitution requires States to give “full faith and credit” to the “Public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of the other States.  Marriages in one state are valid in every other.  Drivers licenses issued in one state are valid in every other.  And so, carry licenses issued in one state should be valid in every other.  Again, the Constitution and the Second Amendment should be the only license required but, again, that’s not politically achievable for the foreseeable future.

Boom.  Done.  Mass shooting spree killer problem dealt with.  There are no longer soft targets for them to attack and if they decide to try anyway, the odds are good that someone will be present and in a position to deal with it.

Now, some folk will say we need to do more.  Well, okay, I can give you more.

4. Establish a fund to provide cash rewards to those who engage and stop a spree killer. Let’s show, clearly and unequivocally, of the “put your money where your mouth is” variety, that we as a society approve of people protecting themselves and those around them from those attempting to do them harm.
5. We want more people skilled and able to deal with threats, so make marksmanship and CQB electives in highs school and college (“any institution that accepts federal funds must…” if the other side can use that, so can we).  These classes to be taught by military personnel. (Frankly, I do not trust professional “educators” to do so, not with the indoctrination they get at the typical school of education.  Military personnel is not an ideal solution but stipulating private organizations would allow anti-gun groups to be chosen and singling out specific pro-gun organizations as the sole possibilities presents makes me squicky from a liberty point of view.)  Oh, and if that state requires training for a carry license (And while I’m a fan of training, I’m not a fan of mandating it–it’s a freedom thing) then make that class also available as an elective in High School and college.
   1. I’ll bend on the “not mandatory” in having gun safety and safe gun handling be a required course in elementary or middle school at the latest.  Again, taught by military for the reasons mentioned above.
6. Implement the “Some Asshole Initiative.” The reason these guys look for soft targets, look to rack up the high body counts in the first place, is that they’re looking for their moment of fame (infamy).  Stop.  Making.  These.  Assholes.  Famous.
   Unfortunately, there really isn’t any way to implement this “top down” without violating freedom so all I can really suggest here is a bottom up approach.  People need to stop naming these people in their own communications and express their displeasure to the media when they put their pictures out, name them, and basically making them famous.  Eventually, maybe, they’ll get the message that providing a forum and publicity to the spree killers is not good business.
   Hey, I can hope.

There, while nothing can completely eliminate tragedies in this imperfect world, this can at least trim them back so they’re not “trendy.” And they would do far more to reduce the incidence than any “gun control” ever can.

That’s the nice thing about being philosophically in favor of freedom is that it’s almost always also pragmatically better.  And the few exceptions we can usually deal with so long as we guard against going beyond those exceptions rather than using them as an excuse for yet more “exceptions.”

As for me, make mine freedom.

 

The militia, as defined by the Founding Fathers, was the whole of the people, armed and disciplined and ready to arms at need.  “Well-regulated”, in the vernacular of the time meant “properly functioning” as in a “well-regulated” clock was one that kept good time.  And, indeed, the original “militia acts” specifying arms, ammo, and other supplies that each household was to retain on hand for use when called up certainly operated from those definitions

So, in order that the militia (the whole of the people, armed and disciplined) be well-regulated (properly functioning as a militia) I propose the following (I’ve got some caveats at the end, so read the whole thing before criticizing):

1. Every American from the age 17 through 45, as well as those older individuals who wish to be included, who is not a conscientious objector nor a prohibited person shall be included in the militia.  Note, this is somewhat broader than what law already is–the “Unorganized Militia” is all males 17-45 who is not a conscientious objector.  I merely take out the sex discrimination and add in older individuals who wish to be included in the militia.  After all, with the advances of medicine folk tend to remain healthy and vigorous a lot longer than they used to.
   I would add that I’d be fairly broad on the allowance for “conscientious objector.”
2. Shooting ranges shall be established in each city and town such that at least one lane is available for every 300 militia members.
3. Every militia member shall possess at least one firearm in one of the following calibers:  9X19 mm, .45 ACP, 10 mm, 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, 7.62X39, .338 Lapua, .50 BMG, 12 Ga shotgun. If financial hardship prevents the militia member from owning such a weapon, loaners shall be available at the prescribed ranges for militia training.  They shall also possess on hand no less than 250 rounds of ammunition in the caliber of their chosen weapon.
   Note:  while rifles are preferred, as suggested by the caliber list handguns and shotguns are acceptable.
4. Each militia member shall present themselves to a designated official no less than annually, demonstrating that they do, in fact, possess the required arms and ammunition.
5. Each Militia Member shall, once each month, receive one hour plus reasonable travel time off with pay to attend a nearby shooting range (see point 2) to practice with their militia weapon.   Employers that wish to provide an on-site shooting range for their own employees use may take a tax credit for the construction of such a range and an annual deduction for the operation of said range.  Scheduling these monthly range trips shall be by mutual arrangement between employer and employee provided that they average at least one per month and no more than 45 days shall pass between consecutive range trips except in case of particular hardship.
6. One hundred rounds of ammunition shall be provided to the militia member for use at each of those monthly range trips.  Additional ammunition used shall be at the militia member’s expense.
7. No limitations shall be placed on additional firearms that may be owned by militia members nor on their training with them save only that training must be conducted in a reasonably safe manner (i.e. clear lines of fire, adequate backstops, reasonable security against other people wandering into the line of fire).
8. These rules shall in no way be considered to limit the use of firearms for sport, recreation, or personal protection.

There you go.  A “well-regulated militia.” Now, I’ll be honest, if this were actually put forward seriously, I’d have several…concerns let us say…myself.  The cost would be high (but perhaps not as high as some things of lesser value that the government already does) and I have a real problem with government mandates in general.  I’m also accepting here (for sake of argument, not that I agree with it) the anti’s argument that the Federal government is claiming responsibility for “well-regulated” (which includes training–a State responsibility according to Article One).  It’s in the order of “I don’t agree with it, but let’s take it and see where it leads.”

I do believe the above is Constitutional under the following provision from Article One of the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

One thing this would do is clearly and unequivocally establish a “well-regulated militia” in the sense the Founding Fathers meant the term.  And I flat guarantee that the people repeating over and over again that the 2nd “says ‘well-regulated'” would go into vapors over such a proposal.  For that reason alone, I’d love to see such a proposal seriously put forward, warts and all.  Since it would show once and for all that their “it says ‘well-regulated'” is disingenuous claptrap meant merely to justify their desire to prohibit privately owned firearms (at least from anyone they don’t personally approve of).

So, can we get a real “well-regulated militia”?

 

So there was this:

“It’s my job” he says.  Which is just one step away from “I was only following orders.”

Sorry, Stevie.  May I call you “Stevie”? Don’t really care, actually.  Going to call you that anyway.

Look, Stevie. Short version:  “It’s my job” is never an excuse for doing something unethical, let alone illegal, and certainly not unconstitutional.  “It’s my job” does not make a wrong thing right.  Period.  End of short version.

Slightly longer version.  Stevie, don’t think I didn’t notice how you just breezed over things with a boss telling you to “do something.” (Like “Some people did something”?) This vague generalization allows you to mask the truly monstrous idea you are attempting to justify here.

Look, if my boss tells me to clean up the warehouse, I clean up the warehouse even if it doesn’t fall under my normal job duties but still falls under “other duties as assigned.” Oh, in many places using a Senior Analytical Scientist as a janitor might be a poor use of scarce resources that have alternative uses but we’re a small company and we have to wear a lot of “hats” so you do what needs to be done when it needs to be done and don’t worry that much about official “job titles.”

But, if my boss said “Rob the office next door” do you think that would fall under “other duties as assigned”? (Spoiler:  It doesn’t.) If my boss were to lose his mind and give me that order, I would tell him to F-off (in so many words) and I would then promptly warn the neighboring office and the police of his plans.

It’s called “ethics”, Stevie.  You, apparently, don’t know anything about that.

Let’s take that a step farther.  Suppose I, too, lost my mind and actually obeyed that ridiculous order thinking “I’m just doing my job.” Do you think that “it’s my job” would make it okay?  When the police came to arrest me (after all, I don’t think I’d make a very competent crook) and I told them I was just doing my job would they say, “well, all right then.  You can go”?

I didn’t think so.

Oh, and my first job after leaving the Air Force?  I did tell my boss to F-off (albeit not in so many words–I was more polite then) when he asked me to do something I considered unethical.  Not even illegal, just in violation of my personal ethics.  Left that job and went working elsewhere–preferred washing dishes in a restaurant to violating my ethics.

It being “your job” doesn’t make it right.  It doesn’t make it acceptable.  A hit man for the Gambino family is just “doing his job” when he pops a rival boss.  But he’s still a murderer and a criminal.  He’s still morally repugnant.

Just like you would be, Stevie, to participate in the confiscation of arms from previously law abiding (law abiding until unconstitutional laws were passed making them criminals) members of the community.

Just like you would be, Stevie, to participate in that blatant violation of the Constitution and fundamental human rights. (Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness)

Just like you would be, Stevie, as a Jack Booted Thug.