Reason Engaged

Concerning us all

2008-09-24T11:58:00.000-07:00

If you’re not familiar with the economic events of the recent past, I would urge you to investigate them from the information source of your own choosing. If you’re not sure where to look, I’ll help at your request.

Once you’re familiar with the context, I’d ask you to consider the solution proposed by our elected representatives: full text here - http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news/economy/treasury_proposal/index.htm :

• The Treasury Secretary (who is unelected) is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means that you and I (taxpayers) are on the hook for loans on property that may lose or have already lost most of its value.

• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." Obviously, taking over and running formerly private companies is NOT a Constitutionally delegated power of the federal government. Consider the precedent that is being set.

• "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process – not the courts, not anybody.

Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. I don’t care what your political persuasion is. If you value the Constitution and ultimately your own freedom, I urge you to get informed about what’s going on. Other than that, what can you do? Let your congressperson and senators know how you feel. Phone is best, but anything is better than nothing. To get their contact information, visit: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Posterity will thank you for your concern.

Lastly, I want to thank you for at least reading this far. It is my sincere hope that we will all weather this storm safely, and it is only out of my concern for our mutual well-being that I write. I hope this letter finds you all well.

The Dali Lama on self-defense

2008-03-26T11:15:00.001-07:00

But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would
be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a
fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.

Well, I'd say he's on the right track. Now, if you're willing to shoot at someone (no matter what you're aiming at), you're saying that you're willing to risk killing him to keep him from killing you. There is no such thing as a guaranteed incapacitating, but non-lethal gunshot.

So, if you're okay with that, then you might as well play the better odds and shoot for center mass. And if you want to be effective, you'd better practice. And for any of it to matter, you have to be "allowed" to carry a gun for self-defense.

Economic SHTF around the corner

2008-03-18T11:58:00.000-07:00
Another relevant quote, for today:

"If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

Thomas Jefferson

We're about to plunge into stage one of that process.

Smoking Bans

2008-03-17T06:13:00.001-07:00
I'm sure you can figure out what I think about smoking bans, but just in case, here's the quote of the day:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best." ~ Thomas Sowell

Wanna rate your local LEO? Sorry, it could be dangerous.

2008-03-12T06:19:00.000-07:00
So, somebody had the great idea to put up a website where I could rate my cop. It only lists publicly available names of officers (no undercover agents, no other personal information). It allows local people to rate their LEO's. Pretty cool, watchdog-ish idea, huh?

Well the po-po don't think so, and neither did the sites host, godaddy.com. The coppers come out with the usual "fears":

"Having a website like that puts a lot of law enforcement, in my eyes, in danger because it exposes us out there," Officer Hector Basurto, vice president of the Latino Police Officers Association, told ABC television affiliate KGO.

Gosh, wouldn't want anything being "exposed" would you? You know what they say about US when we talk about our privacy? "What do you have to hide?"

Vote 2008

2008-02-28T08:11:00.000-08:00
Or do something useful with your time, like taking a nap.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But underthe name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialistprogram, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, withoutknowing how it happened."
-- Norman Thomas(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of AmericaSource: 1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign,

[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist PartyCandidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republicanand Democratic parties by 1970 had adopted every plank on theCommunist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platformon which to run.]

Stuff I've been thinking about

2007-10-02T18:19:00.000-07:00

The Coming Election Cycle: If you don't like Ron Paul, I'd like to know what you don't like about the Constitution.
The Only Ones: If you're not reading TWOG every day, you ought to be. If you haven't seen the video of the Missouri kid getting told by the pig that he'd make up 9 reasons to take him to jail, for goodness sake go watch it!
I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t more than a little concerned about our monetary policy leading to currency debasement and the ultimate collapse of our economy.
Prayer: I’m still studying why we do it and more critically, what it does and who affects.
Hunting Season: Dove season was a let-down this year, but I’m gearing up for deer (shotgun) season.
I’m pretty well convinced that a North American Union is just around the corner, especially if the Lizard Queen is “elected.”

What to expect when you call 911

2007-07-17T05:05:00.000-07:00
If you think you'll call 911 if you've got a home intruder, you'd better think again. Only you can be responsible for the security of your family.

Summary:

"Hello, 911?"
"Somebody's breaking into my house!"
"Are you sure, how do you know?"
"I heard breaking glass! All kinds of noise!"
"Sure it's not your roommate who forgot their key?"
"BANG!"
"Leroy just shot him."
"Does your husband have a gun?"
"Yes he has a gun, he just shot the man!"
"What kind of gun does he have?"

That's enough to give you a flavor.

What if...

2007-02-15T11:50:00.000-08:00
All blonde-haired, blue-eyed men named Nicolas are to be made slaves to the State. We will not be harmed, so long as we cooperate. We will have our basic needs met, and even our families will be cared for. We just won’t be free.

Shall I fight? Will you fight on my behalf?

I wonder.

My life is not threatened. My family’s life is not threatened. Only my freedom is to be dispensed with. The Bible allows me to kill in defense of my life or the life of another, but slaves are commanded to obey their masters, even abusive ones.

Perhaps under these circumstances, the right thing to do would be to submit, knowing that my life is temporary and has been bought with a price. It belongs to my Creator.

What if it were not me? What if it were blonde-haired, blue-eyed men named Adam? It would seem noble to fight on their behalf, for their freedom and natural human rights.

But is my freedom, or anyone else’s for that matter, worth the price of a life?

The Cart Before the Horse: IL Receipts Tax Coming?

2007-02-07T14:59:00.000-08:00
What is a receipts tax? Well, instead of (or in addition to) taxing the income of a company, they'd just tax the gross receipts of the company. What's the difference? If you already know, move on to the next paragraph. If you don't... The difference is that you'd be getting taxed on every dollar you take in as a business, regardless of whether or not you're actually making any money at all.

Of course it's terrible. Of course it's wrong. What else would you expect from Blago?

But here's what's really wrong. It's what's wrong with IL and most states, along with the federal gov. They've got the cart before the horse. They sit down and think of all the things they want to spend money on. Then they try to figure out how they can steal enough of your money get enough to cover their expenses. Sometimes (most of the time in the case of the feds) they just spend away, regardless of whether or not they expect to take enough money in.

When I want a new car, I don't go to my employer and tell him to give me a raise.

Blago wants healthcare for everybody. When the Lizard Queen is elected, we'll all get it. More accurately, none of us will get quality care.

Oh well... One step closer to the end times.

Thoughts on investing

2007-02-06T08:56:00.000-08:00
Disclaimer: Do your own research and think for yourself. Assume I’m an idiot and I don’t know what I’m talking about. You still might come to the same conclusions I do, but at least you’ll know why you believe it.

Let’s talk about saving for retirement for a bit. Everyone seems to ask, “How much should I save?”. The answer is simple. Half.

HALF!?!

Yes, half. Well maybe a third. Okay, let’s think about it. First and foremost, a key assumption here is that whatever you save will grow at about the rate of inflation. The bottom line is that the money you put away doesn’t REALLY grow when you take inflation, fees, expenses, and capital gains taxes into account. The only way around this assumption is for you to beat the masses. Clearly, everyone can’t beat everyone else on their rate of return. You can’t count on somehow beating the odds.

So what does that mean? Well, in the words of the Mogambo Guru, "Mathematically, with real (inflation-adjusted) net gains of zero, to get a hamburger in the future, you have to save a hamburger today."

If you work it all out, you’ll come to the conclusion that if you live on half of what you take home, you can have a day of retirement for every day of work If you’re going to work twice as long as you plan to spend in retirement, then you can afford to live on 2/3 of what you take home.

So, if you’re in your 20’s and plan to work for 40 years and retire for 20 (and you want to live like you do now in retirement), you’d better be socking away the equivalent of 33% of your “spending budget” every month. If you want to work for 30 and retire for 30, your retirement savings better be equal to half of what you spend. Make sense?

Now hopefully you’ll have your house paid off before you retire, so that’ll free up some cash, but chances are you’ll be replacing that expense with old-age related expenses so don’t get too excited.

So I guess we'd better either get saving, or come up with a way to beat inflation and taxes.

Senate Bill 1 (S. 1) 'Victory'

2007-01-22T06:15:00.000-08:00

From the GOA:

Friday, January 19, 2007

Congratulations! You have, once again, whupped the anti-gun zealots!

As Constitution-hating senators like California's Dianne Feinstein whined and complained, the Senate -- by a narrow largely-party-line vote of 55-43 -- struck language which would have required GOA to monitor and report on its communications with its members and friends (like you).

GOA has heard reports that there was an outpouring of calls against this anti-speech language on Capitol Hill, and that it made a huge difference. In addition to the massive wave of grassroots opposition, GOA was also working in concert with key Hill players (many of them trained by GOA) to hammer out a legislative strategy that would either result in the death of the entire bill or, at a minimum, kill the dangerous Section 220.

The good news came late on Thursday night when the Bennett amendment-- which deleted this unconstitutional "grassroots lobbying" reporting language contained in S. 1 -- was adopted by the narrow margin mentioned above.

The war is not over. The House has yet to produce its bill in this area -- and no one is betting that the House will "do the right thing." But we have won what perhaps will be the most important battle.

My Hero

2007-01-19T07:43:00.000-08:00

His name is Ed Brown. He was just on Fox News. He’s got “many” armed supporters with him barricaded in his home, but he’s talking to the press. He just said “somebody’s got to stand up to these government oppressors, and it’s going to start with me” or something like that. “Federal marshals have no plans to storm his home.” We’ll see how long that lasts. My guess is it’ll come down to a siege.
Oh, and the article I linked refers to his house as a "compound". That pretty much seals the deal.

Update on Senate Bill One (S.1)

2007-01-17T14:12:00.000-08:00
It's not just the AFA that sees a problem with this. Here's what the GOA had to say (in an email to me:

"The legislation (S. 1) would regulate "grassroots lobbying" by requiring groups like us to monitor and report the amount of money we spend to exercise our First Amendment rights on behalf of gun ownership.
Suffice it to say that a government which can force us to monitor and report on our "grassroots" activity could just as easily force us to provide even more sensitive details of these efforts.
This could include demands for our membership list -- that is, attempts to get REGISTRATION lists of gun owners' names -- and the specifics of communications with our friends!!!"

ACTION: Contact your two Senators and ask them to support Senate Amendment #20 to S. 1. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
---- Pre-written letter to your Senators ----
Dear Senator:
S. 1 is an effort to intimidate organizations, like Gun Owners of America, that work with members and friends to encourage Congress to support the Second Amendment. Thankfully, Senators McConnell and Bennett are offering Senate Amendment #20 -- to be voted on later this week -- that will knock Section 220 out of S. 1.
I urge you to support that amendment. And if the amendment is defeated, then I would strongly urge you to oppose the underlying bill. Gun Owners of America will be rating both of these votes.
Just as the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, the First Amendment protects our rights to petition the government for redress of grievances. And the power to regulate and monitor our grassroots activities on behalf of gun ownership is, ultimately, the power to destroy those rights.
Please know that this is as much a Second Amendment issue as direct efforts to seize our guns from our hands.
Sincerely,

A nice church to visit

2007-01-17T07:57:00.000-08:00
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.

Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the White Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
Commitment to God
Commitment to the White Community
Commitment to the White Family
Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
Adherence to the White Work Ethic
Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Actually, that's Barack Obama's church. Oh, and I replaced "black" with "white". Think anybody with a "white" church like that could ever get elected?

Update:
Just made the title a link to the church's website.

For what it's worth

2007-01-10T06:27:00.000-08:00
For reasons unknown, I happened to listen to Dobson on the way to work this morning. He was pissed. Mind you, I normally take the upsettedness of the AFA with a grain of salt, because I find them just as likely to advocate government intervention as freedom, but this morning's alarm was different.

He's pissed about Senate Bill number one (S.1). He and his panel agreed that it was unclear as to how the bill might be applied, but when a bill is unclear you can expect the feds will use it to take as much power as they possibly can. Okay, okay, what's it all about?

Well, according to Dobson and co., there's a provision in this "ethics reform" bill that will require groups like the AFA (and likely NRA, GOA, JPFO, and a host of other grass-roots organizers) to report quarterly any contact with its members on the subject of pending legislation (be it email alerts, speeches, radio shows, whatever). What it amounts to (according to Jim) is a muzzle on groups who specialize in mobilizing regular folks to call their congresscritters. So much for free speech. So much for keeping track of what's going on on the Hill.

I looked at the text, and had a hard time making a lot of sense of it because it's a lot of "replace this with that" and I couldn't find the revised code all put together.

So, if Dobson's alarm is valid (and I certainly wouldn't put it past the Senate), the ol' bus analogy may prove true. The Democrats have been revving the engine, and with their first bill they're going to dump the clutch. Buckle up, cause this buss is headed for trouble.

What to think

2007-01-10T06:05:00.000-08:00
For reasons unknown, I happened to listen to Dobson on the way to work this morning. He was pissed. Mind you, I normally take the upsettedness of the AFA with a grain of salt, because I find them just as likely to advocate government intervention as freedom, but this morning's alarm was different.

He's pissed about Senate Bill number one (S.1). He and his panel agreed that it was unclear as to how the bill might be applied, but when a bill is unclear you can expect the feds will use it to take as much power as they possibly can. Okay, okay, what's it all about?

Well, according to Dobson and co., there's a provision in this "ethics reform" bill that will require groups like the AFA (and likely NRA, GOA, JPFO, and a host of other grass-roots organizers) to report quarterly any contact with its members on the subject of pending legislation (be it email alerts, speeches, radio shows, whatever). What it amounts to (according to Jim) is a muzzle on groups who specialize in mobilizing regular folks to call their congresscritters. So much for free speech. So much for keeping track of what's going on on the Hill.

I looked at the text, and had a hard time making a lot of sense of it because it's a lot of "replace this with that" and I couldn't find the revised code all put together.

So, if Dobson's alarm is valid (and I certainly wouldn't put it past the Senate), the ol' bus analogy may prove true. The Democrats have been revving the engine, and with their first bill they're going to dump the clutch. Buckle up, cause this buss is headed for trouble.

Hiatus

2006-09-19T13:15:00.000-07:00
In case you haven't noticed, I'm taking a little break.

A good reason to live in Utah

2006-09-11T07:18:00.000-07:00
"In a ruling that legal experts say could threaten the autonomy of public universities and the safety of their students, the Utah Supreme Court ruled Friday that the University of Utah cannot bar guns from its campus."

This is NOT another "Property Rights vs. Individual Rights" case, which I've talked about before. This is a public University which takes it out of the "private property owner" realm. If it were my property, I could make the rules. I could say you're not allowed to enter with a gun, or I could say you're not allowed to enter without a gun. But this is a tax-payer funded university, owned by the State and my constitutional rights need not be sacrificed to enroll.

Guns don't make anyone safer

2006-09-05T05:40:00.000-07:00
This may be a long one...

Here is all of the background information concerning William Morva, the suspected shooter of a law enforcement officer, and how VA Tech was frozen in fear due to his being "on the loose" in or near the campus.

The incident spawned a series of arguments related to gun regulation. One example was the editorial I responded to last week. Now, another editorial comes out supposedly putting to rest all of our silly "gun rights advocate" ideas. He's responding to a submission by Bradford Wiles titled Imagine if Students Were Armed.

"In my 55 years I've read a lot of newspapers and watched a lot of news on TV, and I just have not seen many reports of incidents where private citizens packing handguns have defended themselves or prevented crimes. I'm sure those incidents do occur, but I'm equally sure they don't occur in meaningful numbers."

Well, I guess that settles that, right? I mean, since you don't hear about it on CNN or EVEN FOX NEWS (*gasp*), it must not ever happen, right? Well, not in meaningful numbers, surely. Let's see... You can pick up an American Rifleman and read about half a dozen or so such incidents every month. You could check Keep and Bear Arms for daily reports of citizens lawfully defending themselves. You could even (and I know this is hard) do your own Google search to find examples of this. Of course, that still won't find all the occurrences because many, if not most incidents where a law-abiding citizen uses a gun (most often not even firing it, let alone killing anyone) go unreported. The Gary Kleck study showed that there are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. Would you consider that a "meaningful number?" [Update: Check out Clayton Cramer’s Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, for near daily uses of handguns for self-defense. Hat tip to SayUncle.]

"In contrast, we read every day of incidents where private, usually law-abiding citizens use too readily available guns with tragic consequences -- emotionally charged domestic disputes, alcohol-related disputes, road rage and, rarely, misguided attempts at private law enforcement."

Since you read about it every day, I'd like a half dozen examples each of where otherwise law-abiding citizens (especially concealed carry permit holders) use their firearms unlawfully and with tragic consequences in road-rage incidents, domestic disputes, and (where did this come from?) "misguided attempts at private law enforcement". I won't hold my breath.

"In response to Wile's implied question: Yes. I do expect you to rely, as everyone else does, on trained law enforcement rather than on yourself, with a gun."

I don't really care what you "expect" me to do. I know my rights. You just keep telling yourself that the police will always be there to protect you. DonÂt bother to read about all of the unanswered 911 calls [2] [3], dismissed as prank 911 calls, or the courtÂs upholding the fact that police do not have an obligation to protect individuals.

"I feel better knowing that my daughter, a college student, does not have a gun and does not need a gun largely because her college, like Virginia Tech, prohibits them on college grounds."

I don't care how you "feel", and it is just plain stupid to think that VT's prohibition of guns would keep someone (by definition a criminal) from using one to harm your daughter.

"As soon as you put any person on that prohibited list, you're recognizing that the Second Amendment cannot be an absolute unbridled right for every individual to 'bear arms.'"

That's the first quasi-logical thing you've said. That's why I agree with those who believe that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian.

Officer said he saw a gun before shooting the driver

2006-09-01T07:02:00.000-07:00
Read it and decide for yourself.

Handcuffed by her own stupidity

2006-09-01T06:16:00.000-07:00
I don't know what's going on, but there seems to be a rash of regular people who think they're professional enough to carry out actions normally reserved for the only ones. Here's the latest:
Oregon woman stopped, handcuffed by phony "undercover" officer (headline). Canby police said they're looking for a man who stopped a teenage driver late Wednesday and handcuffed her. He was wearing a dark blue shirt, police said, and it read: "Under Cover Police."

After ordering her to do sobriety tests, police said, the man cuffed her, searched the vehicle, talked into what appeared to be a handheld radio, uncuffed her and fled.
If that isn't a sad commentary on how conditioned the sheeple are to police control, I don't know what is.

Newsflash

2006-08-31T13:12:00.000-07:00
Cigarette companies aren't trying as hard as they can to put themselves out of business.

In other news, water has been found to be wet and it's hard to see in the dark.

The two points that the article makes are not surprising. First, if you win a lawsuit against a company and force them to advertise against themselves, expect them to do exactly what they have to do and nothing more. Second, if you're going to come up with a standard and a test for that standard, expect the manufacturers to design their products to pass your test, not to altruistically "improve" their product.

Did anyone expect tobacco companies to just throw up their hands and say, "Well, we had a good run but for the good of society we're throwing in the towel."

File under: Nanny State

Nosy Social Worker

2006-08-31T12:29:00.000-07:00

The mother of a member family in Boerne, Texas, needed to drive her 14-year-old daughter to her summer job. Knowing the trip would take just a few minutes, the mother left her 10-year-old at home alone. By accident, the 10-year-old dialed 911, then hung up.
Not long after, a police officer visited the family’s home to make sure everything was OK. The mother explained, and the officer was satisfied, but the social worker with him wanted to talk to the child because the mother left her unsupervised for a few minutes. Unfortunately, the social worker ended up asking irrelevant questions, such as if the 10-year-old wanted to attend public school!
I'm glad this didn't end up getting ugly for the family, as it very well could have.

File under: Fourth Amendment, Nanny State

SAF press release on Katrina Gun Grab Anniversary

2006-08-31T12:27:00.000-07:00
In case you're interested.

Something is fishy here

2006-08-31T06:39:00.000-07:00
PONTIAC, Mich. -- Prosecutors dropped misconduct charges against two city police officers who were videotaped beating a man in an elevator shortly after arresting him.

Brinson, 42, a nine-year veteran, pleaded no contest Tuesday to misdemeanor assault, but his record will be cleared in six months if he pays $150 in costs and stays out of trouble. All charges were dismissed against Lasseigne, 35, a 10-year veteran.
Huh.

Illinois officer cleared of machine gun charge

2006-08-31T06:30:00.000-07:00
The M4 machine gun was the private property of the police officer but he says he bought it and used it only for police purposes, so he gets off the hook.
But Herndon wrote that the federal law granting that authority was too vague in
this instance to support the charges against Vest. Given that Vest apparently
used it only for law enforcement purposes, Herndon said, charging him "seems to
go against the purpose" of the federal law.

So do you think that if I were a reserve deputy and I bought a machine gun in my name with my money and kept it at my house, I'd get the same treatment? Maybe so!

Gun victim leaves hospital early

2006-08-31T06:21:00.000-07:00

The 31-year-old Madison Avenue man said he was walking out of a liquor store at Duncan and Mallory avenues at 3:41 p.m. when two men walked up to him and one said, "You know what this is," police reports said.

Notice that despite being held up by a couple of thugs, the person is a "Gun Victim", and not a "mugging victim".

File under: Media bias/ignorance

Sex Offender Registry

2006-08-31T06:08:00.000-07:00

"Most of the time, they are not living where they are supposed to or they are not reporting where they are living," said Capt. Steve Thompson, commander of the Crimes Against Children unit. "Even if someone is staying at their girlfriend's house for two weeks, they must report that."

If you can't trust them to live anywhere near a school or park, why can you trust them to be my neighbor out in the sticks? I'm against registries of this kind. Either a person has served his punishment and is a free man, or he has not and is not.

A convicted sex offender who has served his sentence is either:

a) Reformed and trustworthy enough to be released into the general public
or
b) "Incurable" and likely to strike again no matter how long you keep him in prison

If (a), then let the guy go and leave him alone.
If (b), then he ought to be in prison forever (or death penalty?)

I think you can make the argument for either (a) or (b), but neither one supports the illogical half-freedom of living a life where you must report your every move.

2nd Amendment Naysayers

2006-08-30T11:08:00.000-07:00

I hope the naysayers can put their Second Amendment concerns aside and allow the proponents of Kent County's [gun buyback] program to pursue their laudable goal of reducing the chance that unwanted guns will be used in violent crimes.
Gun buyback programs may be stupid, ineffective, and a waste of money, but they do not have much to do with the 2nd Amendment. Hey, if it makes you feel better because you're "doing something," knock yourself out. But if you want to take my tax dollars to do it, we'll have words.

More on Jury Nullification

2006-08-30T10:56:00.000-07:00
If you didn't read up on Jury Nullification the last time I mentioned it, I really really REALLY encourage you to go read this post. It's a well-written and well-referenced piece that'll get you up to speed if the idea is new to you.

Really.

NICS Improvement Act of 2005

2006-08-30T07:59:00.000-07:00
Some things you should be aware of:

According to Gun Owners of America, the bill is "anything but harmless" because it will make available to the federal government millions of state records "that could include state tax returns, employment records, library records, DMV, hospital, mental health and some misdemeanor records -- all in the name of making sure you're not prohibited from owning a gun." GOA argues that the bill will allow for an enormous data dump from the states to the federal government -- "laying the infrastructure for even more gun control in the future."

Gun Owners of America also admits that it is the only national pro-gun group to oppose the "NICS Improvement Act of 2005" (H.R. 1415).
"This bill...would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers," says an analysis on the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action website. [The NRA supports the bill]

Introduced by gun control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy...
Read the whole thing for all the details. It doesn't look good to me.

Apparently someone else thinks they're professional enough

2006-08-30T06:51:00.000-07:00

The Glendale police detective was driving his personal vehicle Monday afternoon when a car pulled up behind him and started flashing red and blue lights, said John Balian, a Glendale Police Department. The detective pulled over, thinking it was an undercover officer. When the man got out of the car, he identified himself as a police officer, flashed a gold badge and told the detective to slow down.

After the detective asked to see a picture ID, the man became nervous and fled in his car. The detective wrote down the car's license plate number and police traced it to 22-year-old Shabod Hosseini of Glendale, Balian said. Hosseini was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of false imprisonment and impersonating a police officer.
Ooops.

Anti-gun College student - I know, I couldn't believe it either

2006-08-29T07:16:00.000-07:00

So, you want the right to bring these “tools” designed to kill people onto Virginia Tech’s campus. But wait, you’re trained so it’s okay. The only problem with that is the only training you need to do is participate in any course taught by the National Rifle Association. After checking on their website, a four hour home safety course would satisfy that requirement. I hope you honestly don’t believe that four hours of watching an instructor point at various parts of a gun and perhaps firing a clip makes you remotely close to having any kind of expertise.
I missed the part in his article where he explained why it was okay to ignore the Second Amendment.

I emailed him about it, and you can too: jdishmon AT vt DOT edu

Second Amendment Foundation Wants Bloomberg Prosecuted

2006-08-29T07:09:00.000-07:00
BELLEVUE, Wash., Aug. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is calling on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to prosecute New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for obstruction of justice, for failing to turn over evidence of allegedly illegal firearms transactions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

File under: Second Amendment

When is it reasonable?

2006-08-28T09:38:00.000-07:00

"The key word in the Fourth Amendment is unreasonable. That means under certain conditions a search or seizure without a warrant may be allowed."

Here's the Amendment in its entirety (the last half of which was conveniently left out in the above argument):
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It would appear to me that the only time a search or seizure is reasonable is when there is a warrant. Or is it only saying you need a warrant for those unreasonable searches? That doesn't make any sense.
On a side note, pieces like this make me ashamed to have once rallied around such drivel and anything else that demonized freedom as long as it could be labeled "liberal".
File under: Fourth Amendment

The only one in a black dress enough

2006-08-28T06:44:00.000-07:00

COLUMBUS, Ga. -- A Columbus municipal court judge was freed on bond after he was charged with pointing a gun at another motorist while driving.

The purpose of the "only ones" posts is not to bash "authorities", but to point out the fact that they aren't some kind of special class deserving of special priveleges (especially when it comes to bearing arms).

File under: Only Ones
Update: David has some more details.

On only litsening to the bad guys

2006-08-28T05:28:00.000-07:00

The Fourth Amendment doesn't prevent surveillance of terrorists; it just demands that probable cause be proved to an independent judiciary.

File under: Fourth Amendment

On permitting a right

2006-08-28T05:22:00.000-07:00

As a public university, LSU's policy of requiring students to gain permission from a governmental body in order to protest the same governmental body is not only a clear violation of the First Amendment, it is laughably illogical.
Yeah, pretty much.

File under: First Amendment

Embryonic Stem Cells

2006-08-24T13:25:00.000-07:00
Brutal Hugger has a post on SayUncle about a new process that supposedly allows the use of embryonic stem cells for research without destroying the embryo.

There are still a few things wrong:

First, when you take out one of the 8 cells “for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome” or for male/female verification, or for blonde hair, or whatever you like… There is a problem to me. That coupled with abortion adds up to the ability to throw away any baby that isn’t to your liking.

Second, why not avoid the whole controversy when adult stem-cells are more useful?

In comments, there's a little debate going on which is no surprise. Here are my thoughts:

One of the very few responsibilities that I’m willing to give the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property its citizens from aggressors, or at least to punish the aggressors when that life, liberty or property has been damaged. THAT is why I do believe it is necessary for the government to have some definition of what “life” is. I say it begins at conception. You may disagree. Some say that living in a “persistent vegitative state” isn’t life either. Maybe. The point is, unless we define life, how can we define murder which is the termination of innocent life?

So when does life begin? Conception? tgirsch would scoff at the idea. But does that mean that the baby is merely a “lump of flesh” until its head emerges? I believe such an assertion to be much more absurd than the former. Not having a clear-cut step in between, I would err on the side of being “extra protective” of life and advocate that government define life as beginning at conception.

Just checking in on you

2006-08-23T08:38:00.000-07:00
Just the facts (as reported):

Neighbor Janet Evans said Swanson had lived in the modest white and tan duplex at the end of a cul-de-sac for about nine years. Evans said he used to be congenial and chat with neighbors, but had withdrawn in the past year and rarely left his home.

Officers came to 49-year-old Alfred Swanson's south Nampa home just before 9 p.m. Friday, after family members said Swanson might be in a life-threatening situation, Nampa Police Chief Curtis Homer said. Swanson barricaded himself in his home and refused to come out, despite hours of negotiations and officers firing tear gas into his home in the 1000 block of Garland Street.

Nampa Police called the tactical team to a non-criminal call in part because family members indicated Swanson may be armed, Homer said

At about 2:30 a.m., specially trained tactical team members forced their way in as frightened neighbors listened to the struggle from their homes. Officers shot Swanson with a Tazer, knocking him down, but Swanson still struggled, eventually shooting an officer with a revolver before he was detained.

"We can't walk away if we think someone is hurt and dying in there," he said.

"We're from the government, and we're here to help."

Okay, I added the last one.

File under: Only Ones, Fourth Amendment

Lawsuit demands larger police force

2006-08-23T08:23:00.000-07:00
It looks like in Boston you have to file a lawsuit to get more JBT's on the beat and your taxes raised.

Maybe if 1 in every 15 or so law abiding citizens were armed, they wouldn't have to worry about it...

Tragic

2006-08-22T07:45:00.000-07:00
"Police arrested an 18-year-old Livermore woman late Friday on suspicion of murder after she secretly gave birth in her home and then allegedly killed her newborn daughter by putting a bag over the baby's head and knotting it at the neck."

Now if only she had had the money to go to a doctor's office a few months earlier and have the baby killed, that would have been her "right".

Right?

Japan to change pacifist Constitution?

2006-08-22T07:31:00.000-07:00
"Shinzo Abe, the front-runner to become Japan's next prime minister, has called for revisions to the pacifist constitution imposed after World War II, saying the country must adapt to a new era. "

I thought it was interesting.

Quote of the Day

2006-08-21T07:35:00.000-07:00
From page 2 of LATOC, comes this gem:
Unfortunately, the odds of us upscaling our use of solar and wind to the point where they provide even just 2-3 percent of our total energy supply are about the same as the odds of Michael Moore and Dick Cheney teaming up to win a 5K relay race.
Heh.

Gasp! SWAT hits wrong house!

2006-08-18T12:22:00.000-07:00
Gee, that never happens. Well, it happened here. Luckily the law-abiding homeowner wasn't home when it happened. They busted in his door and gassed his house. He can't live there. He can't work because they slashed the tires of his truck and he had tools and materials necessary for his remodeling business in his home.

"Mistakes were made".

"An informant's tip that led officers to Steven Blackman's house should have been corroborated before the search warrant was sought, Lt. Dean Sullivan said."

I should say so.

Just think. What if it had been you? What if you had been home? What if you mistook the raiders for, of all things, raiders and tried to defend yourself and your family?

More dangerous than those they would protect you from

2006-08-18T08:39:00.000-07:00
I forgot to post this yesterday:

In 350 incidents since 1985, officers shot selves or one another nearly as often as they were hit by suspects, records show.
Though the resulting wounds tended to be less serious than in gun battles with suspects, scores of officers and more than two dozen suspects and bystanders have been injured in incidents that department officials blame on careless handling of firearms.

But, but I thought they were the PROFESSIONALS!?

File under: Only Ones

SAF and NRA suit vs New Orleans still alive

2006-08-17T06:30:00.000-07:00
There's talk of this being a case that might make it to the Supreme Court, and that if it did it could be the one that affirms the 2nd as an individual right.

But would it matter? Should we (as gun-owners and freedom-lovers) be rooting for it to get to the Supremes? Let's look at the possible outcomes:

1. It goes to the Supreme Court, and the suit is upheld. The Court rules that the 2nd is an individual right but... Well, I'll just say that I agree with David on how it would turn out:
Prediction: A Second Amendment case will be heard by the Supreme Court in the next few years, and it will confirm an individual right. However, the ruling will be so narrow that it will not override state interest claims. It will not require a strict scrutiny standard, but rather an intermediate one. And it will certainly not overturn "assault weapon" bans, open the door for viable challenges to permitting schemes, or declare registration mandates, background checks, and similar prior restraints unconstitutional infringements.In short, we will achieve a "status quo," where the vast majority of "existing gun laws" are deemed enforceable and prosecutable, rather than repealable.
2. It goes to the Supreme Court, and the suit is dismissed. The Court rules that the 2nd is NOT an individual right. The legislative floodgates are opened and we speed down the path toward total private firearm prohibition.

On the surface, it doesn't look like gun owners have much to gain by having a 2A case come before the Supremes. Unless you think about what might happen if enough people got riled up about number two...

File under: Gun Laws

We're the only ones shooting-you-in-the-back enough

2006-08-15T09:28:00.000-07:00
The po-po is getting a little out of hand in Las Vegas. They're on pace to shoot 33 people this year.

Two cases stand out: the slaying of a handcuffed teen shot in the back while running from homicide detectives in May, and the fatal shooting July 4 of a motorist who police say defied officers’ commands to turn down his booming car stereo.

Surely the officers involved have been appropriately reprimanded, if not fired, right? Ha!

“If we’re right, we’re right, and I’m going to defend it,” he said. “If we’re wrong, we’re not going to fold our arms and make like there isn’t room for improvement.”

ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT?? When you're wrong, innocent people get shot and killed. You call that room for improvement?

File under: Only Ones

The final step toward a police state

2006-08-15T05:52:00.000-07:00
It's being taken in the UK. Police are demanding the power to be judge, jury, and executioner. "Police want new powers of "instant justice" to combat anti-social behaviour, according to reports."

Knife crime would be tackled by enabling officers to stop and search based on "reasonable suspicion" from previous convictions.

In the above scenarios, the sentences would effectively be passed on the streets with an appeal to courts later.

"Mr Rowley told Acpo's Police Professional magazine the service had seen its powers reduced so much that it was in danger of being no more than an agency of referral to a "slow and inaccessible" criminal justice system.

He said: "It therefore is time to debate whether constables should be given substantial additional, discretionary, summary powers to meet these challenges. Such powers would effectively bring existing criminal justice powers to the street."

Say goodbye to what little freedom you had, blokes.

Badge of Honor

2006-08-11T11:22:00.000-07:00

Even though my site contains none of the offending content, I have apparently been blocked by a school district in TN.

Police proudly disperse peaceful "roaches" with rubber bullets

2006-08-11T06:22:00.000-07:00
Maybe I should start keeping track of events by which Amendment they break. File this one under the First. A woman is at a peaceful protest against, of all things, totalitarianism in the US:

Videotaped footage of the protests shows Ritter standing next to a police officer using a bullhorn to announce that the protests would be permitted to continue as long as they remained peaceful.

Ritter is later seen on the tape walking away from a line of officers when she is apparently shot in the leg with a rubber bullet.

She then turns toward the officers and asks, "Did you shoot me? A lady in a suit? Who has been walking peaceably in front of you for half an hour and you shot me when my back was turned?"

Ritter turns to a crowd of protesters and says, "Well, you all saw it. They have been watching me for a half hour. They know I'm not armed." At the request of a photographer, she displays for the camera a fresh welt on the back of her leg, where it appears she has just been shot by a rubber bullet.

An audible barrage of rubber-bullet fire follows, as protesters are heard screaming in fear and pain, and yelling at officers, "What the [expletive] was that? Why did you do that to us?"

The camera then finds Ritter again, crouched alone in the street under her sign as rubber bullets continue to fly around her. She said a rubber bullet pierced her foam-board sign and struck her forehead.

A civilian review board investigated law enforcement response to the protests and found no criminal misconduct. [or course]

In a bizarre turn of events, someone videotaped the police watching the video of the woman being shot:

"The lady in the red dress," Kallman says on the tape, to cheers and laughter. "I don't know who got her, but it went right through the sign and hit her smack dab in the middle of the head." Another officer can be heard off-camera, asking, "Do I get a piece of her red dress?" Ritter said the tape had completely changed her take on what had happened to her that day.

Not only are they not sorry for what they did, they think it was hilarious, and referred to the crowd as “roaches”.

Feel good about your right to peaceably assemble and express free speech?

File under: First Amendment

Maurice and his "assault weapon"

2006-08-10T07:23:00.000-07:00
The dude has been trouble from the start. Yesterday he got caught near the home of a girl who's getting ready to testify against him with 4 loaded guns in the car. For the rest of his saga leading up to this point, check out the story. He's a lowlife.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about. I just wanted to point out a few things about the story:

First, he is said to have been "carrying an arsenal that included three semi-automatic handguns and an AK-47-type assault rifle in the front seat - all loaded." Almost all handguns are functionally "semi-automatic" and I wouldn't trust the author to know the difference. The word is just used because it's scary, which brings us to the term "AK-47-type assault rifle". Again, I doubt the author knows that an "assault rifle" is a machine gun and that there's no way Maurice could get one legally. As a matter of fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he didn't have any of the guns legally.

Enough of that. Here's the one quote from the LEO that really annoyed me:
"But if you've got four guns in your car you're up to no good."

How many of us have ever had four guns in our car? It's eerily reminiscent of Blago's statement about gun owners in Chicago:
"A guy in my neighborhood with a gun, that's a gang-banger, and he ain't hunting deer or quail. That guy's up to no good. "
Is that kind of bias any different than racism?

Duane Quates is the "only one" who fully understands the issue

2006-08-09T08:05:00.000-07:00

Gun control is neither anti-American nor unconstitutional, and in most cases, it is actually beneficial to both our economy and the operation of a free society. Anyone who would spout such drivel as Garlock does not fully understand the issue.
This coming from the guy who also said:
"Perhaps Garlock would prefer to live in a country where his is the only viewpoint that counts."
Hmm. So let's see here. "You're an idiot if you have an opinion different than mine, and your an idiot if you don't respect other peoples' opinions." Gotcha.
But let's address the issue. Mr. Quates says gun control is good and that it's not unconstitutional. Let's examine the facts he gives to support his claim:
Well, that was easy. I guess we should just believe him. After all, he is an "anthropology graduate student" and he has "been trained with firearms, and [has] been around them all [his] life." I guess that qualifies him to tell other people that gun control is good and anyone who disagrees doesn't "fully understand the issue" like he does.
Maybe we'd "fully understand the issue" if you'd... I don't know... talk about the issue. But that would require thought and research which could potentially lead him away from his current position. We can't have that now can we, Duane.
I'd like to ask Duane just one question...
Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?
You too can ask him: quatesed@msu.edu

The Constitution Doesn't Matter Anymore

2006-08-09T06:51:00.000-07:00
I'm submitting that the Constitution of the United States is no longer in force, and probably hasn't been for most of the last 100 years. The restrictions on government and the Bill of rights are largely ignored by legislators and judiciaries collectively.

I realize that readers' (both of them) reactions might range from, "that's absurd" to, "well, duh!".

I just had to get that off my chest I guess.

There's no such thing as Intellectual Property

2006-08-08T07:36:00.000-07:00
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself, but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, whom she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breath, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Jury Nullification

2006-08-07T07:49:00.000-07:00
If you don't know what it is, you should find out because no judge or attourney is ever going to inform you.

Judge the people AS WELL AS the laws.

This is getting old

2006-08-02T11:49:00.000-07:00
The more I blog, the more tired I get of reading the same old recycled crap that the MSM anti-gun "authorized journalists" have to put out.

“These are killing machines,” said Mack as he held an AR-15 assault rifle confiscated from a recent search warrant at 19 Woodlawn Dr. “These guns aren’t used for deer hunting or target practice. They are used to kill other people. They are made for war."
All guns are killing machines, in the literal sense. AR15's are not assault rifles because they're NOT fully automatic. They ARE used for deer hunting AND target practice. As a matter of fact, target shooting competitions are DOMINATED by AR15's. They can be used to kill people, but again so can any gun. They are not made for war. That would be the fully automatic M16 or M4. Some people have guns for defense and so they want guns that are good at killing people. There's nothing wrong with that just like there's nothing wrong with police having guns that are "for killing people.
That was the police man speaking. Now let's get to the totally biased reporter:
Most of the rifles displayed Monday were chambered for the very lethal 7.62 mm round. This the same kind of ammunition and firearm used in the July 27 shooting death of 5-year-old Mariyanna Tucker in Lone Oak Apartments on Hoy Road. The round is known as a “cop killer” because it can penetrate most any type of body armor used in the world today.
7.62x39? 7.62x54? 30-06? 30-30? 7.62 happens to be about the most common sized rifle round in existence. Obviously the author doesn't know anything about guns. The cop killer comment about makes me sick. Apparently anything that can kill a cop is a "cop killer". If a mid-sized sedan has the ability to crush an officer's skull, is it a "cop killer"? Again, almost any rifle (especially hunting rifles) will penetrate "most any type of body armor used in the world today".

What it's like when it's not a right

2006-08-02T11:11:00.000-07:00
Via Of Arms and the Law we find this gem from Australia:
FIREARM owners in Wodonga, and in fact the whole of Victoria, have been put on notice.Victoria police will be calling on them in the coming months to check they are complying with the law when it comes to the stage storage of their weapons. And those who are not doing the right thing had better watch out as the penalties for breaking the law are pretty severe.
No doubt there will be some owners who will not be happy that police will be calling on them. And some police officers could probably feel they have better things to do than going door-to-door checking people are doing the right thing.But the fact is that firearm safety has to be a priority for all owners.
Those who legally own and use firearms have to know it is not a right, and it comes with a special responsibility to comply with all relevant laws.
So that's what Americans can look forward to once the 2nd Amendment is rendered impotent.

Holy Sensationalism, Batman!

2006-08-01T07:52:00.000-07:00
After the last post, I decided to do a little search. It turned up this story that uses all of the tired out old "assault weapon" gibberish. Of course, they're "high-powered".

A SLED agent shows us the power of an AK-47, capable of shooting nine bullets in quick succession 2,400 feet per second. It's the type of gun used in combat.
Hmm, "quick succession" huh? Did Lee Harvey Oswald (if you believe he was the shooter) have an assault weapon? He supposedly fired bullets in "quick succession" and he was using a bolt-action rifle! Is 2,400 feet per second a lot? You're not supposed to care. It sounds scary! This "authorized journalist" doesn't even bother with the ambiguous "military style" moniker. She just flat out tells us that this is the same as the FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS used in combat, which of course is not true.
That is frightening to officials like Lt. Ricky Ezzell, "These rounds have the capability of going through our body armor, so it's pretty scary."
Of course they are. That's because your "body armor" is designed to stop handgun bullets. Any "hunting rifle" would penetrate your vest as well.
Lt. Ezzell shoots an AR15. It's the civilian version of the military's M-16. The bullets left behind are similar to what's been found in gang warfare in Richland County.
Bullets left behind? Similar? Is this a Michael Moore documentary? So, without actually telling us, she's telling us that gangs use AR15's. Horse Manure.

"Until some of the, perhaps, legislation is changed regarding how guns are obtained, we're going to see probably increase in weapons and firearms used in these incidents." But Smith admits, no matter what the law, gangs who want guns will find a way to get them.
So what is he really saying?

File under: Media bias/ignorance

Why are all guns "high powered"?

2006-08-01T07:46:00.000-07:00
There's not really much of an issue here - the people arrested were wrongdoers. But TWICE the guns were referred to as "high-powered". Just what is the journalistic threshold of "high power" when it comes to firearms?

File under: Media bias/ignorance

And here I thought PARENTS were responsible...

2006-07-27T12:21:00.000-07:00
... but in Philadelphia, apparently the school districts are.

Vallas said after the press conference that, while schools are safer under his watch, the district should take responsibility for the well-being of all school-age juveniles, regardless of whether they are in school or not.

File under: Nanny State

The definition of fascism

2006-07-27T06:40:00.000-07:00
Privately owned, state controlled.

"The measure requires mega-retailers with more than $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet to pay workers at least $10 an hour in wages plus $3 in fringe benefits by mid-2010. The current minimum wage in Illinois is $6.50 an hour and the federal minimum is $5.15."

File under: US Politics, Nanny State

Guns only hurt you and people you care about

2006-07-27T06:16:00.000-07:00
Collective gasps were heard Wednesday as gruesome photographs of gunshot victims flashed onto a screen before dozens of teenagers and their parents. “Y’all look. Don’t look away,” the speaker said. “This is where the fascination of guns gets you.”

Guns are made to kill, Davis said, so carrying one – even if it’s to have a sense of protection – doesn’t change its purpose. “You just made a decision you’re ready to die or kill someone,” he said.

I only partially disagree with the last paragraph. Guns ARE for killing people. People carry guns to AVOID dying for lack of defense, not because they've "made a decision you're ready to die".

NY columnist is anti gun!

2006-07-27T05:58:00.000-07:00
Yeah, big news huh? It's good practice reading through drivel like this and pointing out all of the fallacies. Here are a few:

One proven way to reduce urban crime is to choke off the supply of guns on the street. [Proven? Where?] And one sure way to do that is for police to track where the guns are coming from. For example, studies in New York have shown, again and again, [then it ought to be easy to cite them...] that a major source of cheap Saturday night specials [made up name] can be traced to Virginia. That information helps law enforcement target black market and rogue dealers. [how about arresting criminals, not lawful business owners?]

But in 2003, the gun lobby succeeded in persuading Congress to prohibit public disclosure of gun tracing data -- an insult to the the [sic] people's right to know. [Where did he get this idea that people have a right to know about the spending habits of other people?]

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is one of the most outspoken critics of the proposed legislation, and for good reason. He estimates that 82 percent of guns used in crimes in his city come from out of state. [I estimate that 94% of New Yorkers are ignorant fools.]

And the grand finale: The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the International Association of Police Chiefs and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers have all voiced opposition to the proposed legislation. How can Congress, in good conscience, not listen?

Gosh, you mean there are THREE small anti-gun groups (two of which are "international" so what should they have to do with our laws?) against it and the only ones supporting it are regular citizens and the 4 million members of the NRA? I just can't figure it out...

File under: Media bias/ignorance

Undercover cops at your next 4-H/church/homeschool meeting

2006-07-25T10:26:00.000-07:00
A group of people decided to have a parade without a permit. The cops sent undercover agents to "infultrate" the group and determine whether or not it posed a threat. If they can do that, why not any other group?

As a country, we have to decide what we want. Do we want to monitor anyone who might possibly commit a crime, or do we want to get all crazy/radical/constitutional and only have our right to privacy invaded when there's a court issued warrant complete with probable cause and all the rest?

Sadly, it seems many prefer the former. Remember, it's for your own good.

File under: Big Brother

26 shots - Now THAT'S professional.

2006-07-24T11:12:00.000-07:00
Multiple police officers (at least four) fired 26 shots inside a narrow hallway in an apartment complex in order to subdue a dog that was defending its owner's door while the police beat on it. Holes were left in doors and walls. Of course, it was justified. And I guess if someone else had been hurt or killed (besides the four officers who were hit), that would have been justified too.

File under: Only Ones

Pro Choice vs Sex Selection in the UK

2006-07-13T08:06:00.000-07:00
Via Vox:
Sex selection of babies for non-medical reasons is set to be outlawed in the UK under Government plans for a shake-up of embryology regulation. Health Minister Caroline Flint told MPs she was minded to introduce a "clear and specific ban" on the use of new techniques to choose one gender of baby.
Allowing parents to pick sex for reasons such as "balancing" the make-up of their family could be the start of a "slippery slope" to designer babies, she warned.
Wow, could you really be more rationally inconsistent? A commentor sums it up nicely:

You can hear the conversation now:
Woman - I really want a boy, Dr. Can you tell me the sex and then if it's a girl abort it.
Dr - Sorry ma'am, I'm not allowed to do that by law.
Woman - So you can abort it for no reason but not for a reason?
Dr - That's right - It's all part of being a Dr.....and being British.
Woman - Oh, ok, well just abort it then. Wouldn't want to take a chance, now would I?
Dr - Jolly good and all that sort of rot!

Police tie jump in crime to juveniles

2006-07-13T07:46:00.000-07:00
Although guns are mentioned quite a bit, I'm surprised to find that they're not directly blamed for everything in this article in the USA Today. What is to blame? Gangs. It's as simple as that.
Minneapolis police estimate that this year, juveniles will account for 63% of all suspects in violent and property offenses there, up from 45% in 2002.
In Boston, juvenile arrests for robbery rose 54% in 2005; weapons arrests involving youths rose 103%. "Kids are jumping into this violence," police Superintendent Paul Joyce says. "We're very concerned."
So what's the root of the problem of kids in gangs? Home life? Culture? Lack of meaningful and consistent sentencing? Nope.
Localities often complain they don't have enough money; now the chorus is getting louder. Tight budgets and an emphasis on terrorism have shifted federal and state money from police and programs for youths. "It should be no surprise that the streets are more violent," Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak says. Since 2003, he says, Minneapolis has lost at least $35 million a year in state funding for city programs.

Right. If only we could extort more money from the citizens to fund the public programs, all these problems would just go away.

Drive-by shooting at sex offender's home

2006-07-13T07:31:00.000-07:00

"Whether or not a person is guilty or has received the right punishment is not up to the police or the neighbors, it is up to the court to decide. "
This is why I don't support the registration and publication of personal information of "sex offenders". If they're so dangerous that they can't live near schools or they need their name on a publicly accessible list, then they're dangerous enough to keep locked up away from the rest of us. If they've been sufficiently punished and are trustworthy enough to be set free, then set them free. All I'm asking for is consistency.

War?

2006-07-13T06:42:00.000-07:00
Brink of War: Lebanon Launches Retaliatory Assault on Israel

I didn't really do it justice.

2006-07-13T05:13:00.000-07:00
The ridiculous intimidation of a peaceful anti-illegal immigration rally in Morristown, TN needs a little more attention than I gave it in the post below. You can still read the news story at the link provided there, but I think the pictures say much more than can be described there. Here's a sample, and keep in mind that this is a pre-arranged, peaceful rally with all the necessary permits, et. al.

Other pictures at the site include shots of the tracked armored vehicle, helicopter, two mobile command units, a fire truck with hoses unrolled, and a parking lot full of squad cars (that coincidentally forced anyone who wanted to attend the rally to park several blocks away).

This is Tennessee, but you'd think it was China.

For what it's worth, I don't care what kind of group is having a rally - this kind of 'prior restraint' is a blatant infringement on the right to free speech. I'd be just as upset no matter what kind of group was being stifled like this.

J&G Sales in trouble over endorsing a politician

2006-07-11T09:09:00.000-07:00
..because they're not "authorized journalists". If you think we really have free speech, read the story.

If you still think we do, read this story, where protestors aren't allowed to have their flags on flagpoles because they're "considered weapons". The unbiased (but pictureless) story is here.

Fox and Friends - Kilmead Calls for Office of Censorship

2006-07-11T08:50:00.000-07:00
On June 29, during Fox News Radio's "Brian & The Judge," co-host Brian Kilmeade (also co-host of Fox News' "Fox & Friends") suggested that the U.S. government should "put up the Office of Censorship."

Kilmeade noted that, during World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt instituted an Office of Censorship.

Kilmeade then (rather incoherently) justified reviving the idea:
KILMEADE: See, I'm more into the ends justifying the means. And what they do is, you can sunset this... The same way they have the Patriot Act sunsetted. You put up the Office of Censorship. You get a consensus to journalists to analyze and then you realize what FDR realized early. Winning is everything. Freedom is -- you don't have any freedom if the Nazis are the victors.
You see, we have to "suspend freedom for just a little bit" while we get this ugliness worked out. Honest, the feds will give it back when they're done with it. Sure thing. We'll go back to normal just as soon as the "war on terror" is over. When do you think that will be? I suppose it'll be right after we declare victory in the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty". Then you'll get your freedoms back.

File under: Big Brother

Blago must be worried

2006-07-11T06:46:00.000-07:00
At least, that's the only reason I can come up with as to why he's pulling this sort of stunt. He's trying to appeal to down-staters with tripe like this:
"Had my dad immigrated to the southern part of the state, instead of being a steelworker, he'd have been a coal miner, and I probably would have grown up instead of shooting hoops at the playground, shooting rifles and hunting," said Blagojevich, appearing in casual dress outside the state-funded $50 million World Shooting and Recreational Complex that his administration championed.
and
"A guy in my neighborhood with a gun, that's a gang-banger, and he ain't hunting deer or quail. That guy's up to no good. It's a lot different down here," Blagojevich added, stressing that he understands the distinction. "It's law-abiding, it's legitimate, and it ought to be celebrated."
So my US Constitutionally guaranteed right (which extends to me even in your state through the 14th amendment) is nothing but a regional preference? The only reason everyone in Chicago who has a gun is a criminal is that (people like) you have made it a crime to be in Chicago with a gun.

If I'm reading his sentence right, he's saying that "a guy down here with a gun is legitimate and ought to be celebrated". Is he proposing some kind of "Southern IL Gun Fest"? Somehow I doubt it.

I would happily let Chicago succeed from IL and leave us the heck alone. Sadly, the reason is that with all their voting power, they're able to trample my Constitutional rights.

Codrea on Education

2006-07-11T06:41:00.000-07:00
David departs ever so slightly from the norm and has a great snip at Publik Skools:
As for at the state level, separation of school and state would suit me just fine--right now, with confiscatory taxes to pay for educating others and sustaining collectivist teachers union monopolies, and with comnpulsory [sic] attendance in mandated Second Amendment-free zones, the entire corrupt system is inevitably one big inmate-conditioning hive.
Ayup.

The only ones vigilante enough

2006-06-30T08:11:00.000-07:00

At least that's the way it seems with two recent incidents in which a Cannon County jailer and La Vergne Police officer, both off duty and out of their jurisdiction, allegedly tried to pull over two people on Rutherford County roads.

Instead of suspending or firing Foster, though, Cannon County Sheriff Kenny Wetzel said he will give him the benefit of the doubt until the case goes to court, allowing him to keep overseeing inmates. With a decision like that, we must ask: What does a person have to do to get fired from the Cannon County Jail?

At least La Vergne Police put a two-week suspension on Officer Santiago McKlean after he tried to stop a woman June 8 for reckless driving on Florence Road, then chased her for at least two miles, frightening her and endangering his own family. His wife and two small children were in his private car when he went after the woman, off duty and outside La Vergne to boot.
Because of their reckless behavior, these two individuals should probably be fired for the good of the people, those they've chased already and those they could hurt if they are allowed to stay on the job.
Wow. I don't have much else to say.

File under: Only Ones

Concealed gun law raises interest, worry

2006-06-30T08:06:00.000-07:00

Topeka — While some Kansans are eager to get a license to carry a concealed gun, many businesses are anxious to get signs to prohibit guns on their premises, officials said Thursday.
I have an idea. Why don't shop owners just put up a sign that says, "No robbers allowed". That'd be just as effective at stopping criminals. As it stands, when they put up their "No guns" sign, they're just asking to be jacked by letting the bad guys know that they don't have to worry about anyone protecting themselves.

The latest from the UN gun conference

2006-06-30T08:03:00.000-07:00
Via Cam.

A few more countries gave their opening statements on Thursday. The representative from the Solomon Islands said, “the commitment of the Government of Solomon Islands in implementing the Program of Action is so much so that it has even banned the selling of toys guns sold in shops including collecting licensed arms for the purposes of rooting out a gun culture from growing in a small country.” I suppose you can’t blame the government of the island chain for being a little nervous. After all, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army fought a war for autonomy not too far away in Papua New Guinea, and there’s been a lot of unrest in the Solomons as of late. Better take everyone’s guns just to be safe.

What do you do when the police knock on your door?

2006-06-30T07:12:00.000-07:00

Well, two options come to mind. You can answer the door or not answer
the door. Both can be bad ideas.
Men posing as police officers break into home
A total of six people were inside the house when three men, who identified themselves as police officers, entered with guns drawn wearing vests with "Cicero Police" written across the back, baseball caps with "POLICE" written on the bill, and duty belts with gun holsters, Liakopoulos said. Two of the men were carrying handguns.
Hmm... That didn't go very well. I guess that to be safe, you should just not answer the door.
Man charged after gun incident
Police responded to the report of a male subject inside of a residence with a handgun, and the caller wanted him removed, according to Sgt. Frank Stearns. - WTF???
Officers attempted to make contact with the individual who was later identified as Davis. He refused to come to the door when asked by police. - Right, they "asked" him to come to the door.
It was found that Davis did not threaten anyone with the handgun. He was charged with interference with official acts for refusing to answer his door and speak to police. A 9mm handgun was recovered inside the Davis residence. - So the guy didn't do ANYTHING and he got arrested, charged with a crime, and his gun was confiscated.
Nice work, boys.
File under: Only Ones, Media bias/ignorance, Gun Laws

More on smoking, more from getliberty

2006-06-30T06:47:00.000-07:00
Thanks again to getliberty for this look at the logical progression of smoking bans in CA. Next up is a ban on smoking in a car if there's a kid with you. getliberty points out that banning smoking in YOUR HOME is the next logical step.
Note that there's nothing in Sen. Ortiz's rationale that inherently limits its application to cars. If smoking in proximity to a child is bad in your SUV, it's just as bad in your home -- the busybodies just haven't mustered up the courage to take the next logical legislative step.
File under: Nanny State

Welcome Home

2006-06-30T06:42:00.000-07:00
A guy comes home to find out that SWAT has tear-gassed his house and broken down the doors in a raid for a guy who he's never heard of. VERY professional...

File under: Only Ones

Another "only one" shoots himself in the leg

2006-06-29T07:29:00.000-07:00
Free Constitution has the scoop.

Smoking bans

2006-06-29T07:18:00.000-07:00
It's everywhere. The talking heads are all abuzz with talk about banning smoking here, there and everywhere. It's terrible. It's stupid. It's our government.

Look, if a restaurant wants to allow its patrons to smoke, who are you (big brother) to tell them they can't? If someone doesn't want to eat or work there because of the environment, let them go somewhere else. If everyone really thinks it's so dangerous, the place will soon be out of business. The bottom line is, you don't get to tell people how to run a business (yeah, I know they do already, and I disagree with that too).

Off duty police shooting/beating update

2006-06-29T07:01:00.000-07:00
This is a pretty good wrap-up on the story of the off-duty cop on his motorcycle who got into it with a crowd in an alley. Both sides are presented.

My conclusion from these accounts is that neither side is innocent. The fact remains that the cop ended up shooting someone. There are only two scenarios:

It was justified. The guy was in fear of his life and did not instigate the violence (most self-defense laws say something to the effect of "you can't claim self-defense if you're the one that started it). If this is the case, it's a good example of why all law-abiding citizens should have the right to carry.
It was reckless. He started the whole mess and decided he was professional enough to end it with his Glock 40. If this is the case, it's a good example of why police aren't a special class of citizens who are holier-than-thou and deserve to be the only ones professional enough to carry guns.
File under: Only Ones

The call for "special schools"

2006-06-29T06:44:00.000-07:00
Some day your free-thinking child won't be welcome at the local publik skool. He will be deemed as "disruptive" for his "radical ideas" about the constitution and limited scope of the government.
"These children should be taken outside of mainstream education and put in special schools to give the well behaved children a chance to learn."
Substitute "well behaved children" with "Hitler youth" and you get my feeling on the matter. None of this would be a problem if we didn't have State run "education". Kids who really are disruptive would simply be denied service. If you don't want to learn, you don't have to. If you want to, you and your parents (not me) have to work for it. All of the sudden I think you'd find people a little more interested in school because they'd have a vested interest. Plus I'd keep my tax money.

File under: Nanny State

House votes to overturn mandatory gun locks

2006-06-29T06:31:00.000-07:00
What an idea! Instead of making more laws that further restrict citizens and businesses, let's focus on repealing existing restrictions.
The amendment overturning the requirement for trigger locks was attached to a larger law enforcement spending bill for next year that has not yet been considered by the Senate.
It's not much of a victory in the way of repealing restrictive gun laws, but I guess it's something. I'd rather see something that gives more freedom to law abiding citizens rather than manufacturers, but I that doesn't mean I can't be happy for them..
File under: US Politics, Gun Laws

Global Warming

2006-06-28T10:45:00.000-07:00
This came via Alphecca, and it's good.

While only a humble mechanical engineer (with 25+ years of experience in heat transfer and thermogoddamics…thermodynamics, sorry) I still must express my opinion that you have been seriously misled by the government/media hype of their crisis-de-jour, "global warming". Also referred to as GHG/AGW ("greenhouse gas/anthropogenic global warming").
Before I'll listen to anyone express their (usually woefully uninformed) opinion on GHG/AGW, I'll pose to them three questions, the Bezat Basic AGW Quiz. Please don't cheat by skipping down to the answers first.
---------------------------------------------------
1. What gas is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse warming effect on Earth?Enviro-twit answer: Carbon dioxide, of course.
2. Is the United States a net A) absorber, or B) emitter of carbon dioxide?Enviro-twit answer: Net emitter, of course.
3. Is the global climate today A) cooler, or B) warmer than it was about 1,100 years ago?Enviro-twit answer: Warmer, of course.
Anyone who responds with those answers, and yet still has (and is willing to voice) an opinion about anthropogenic warming, should simply be taken out and shot ignored. The real answers are:

1. Water vapor is the gas responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. While part of that is clouds, the majority of the effect is the simple water vapor content (expressed as pounds of water per pound of dry air, as in a psychrometric chart) in the air around us. CO2 is responsible for only about 1% to 1-/1/2% (depending on whose model you use) of the greenhouse effect on Earth. Methane has a far higher effect.

2. The US absorbs far more CO2 than we produce, largely through the effects of huge areas of croplands and forest. Did you know that the US now has MORE forested area than it did pre-Columbian? Another number that the enviro-twits love to trot out is that with only (x)% of the worlds population, we use 25% of the world's energy. The number they DON'T add behind that is that the US also PRODUCES about 30% of the world's GNP. We use more, but we're FAR more efficient at using it, and produce FAR more with it than anybody else.
As a bonus question, ask whether this same is true of 1) Germany, 2) France, 3) Japan? And then ask if there's maybe just the teeny-tiny possibility of a political/economic agenda going on?

3. It's cooler now. Remember, in 900 AD the Norsemen were raising trees and crops (!!!) of oats in Greenland, and had probably colonized Newfoundland ("Vinland", with the grapes), which at the time was fecund. The era is referred to in climatology texts (but only those written prior to the 1980's) as the "Medieval Climate Optimum". It was followed by the period referred to as the "Little Ice Age", from the 1,300's to the late 1,700's. We're still emerging from that era, so an overall warming trend (globally, and of minor import) is expected.

- Bonus question: What was the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1000 AD?There's a huge amount of speculation among climatologists about the strong correlation between the MCO and a period of almost zero sunspots referred to as the "Maunder Minimum", but as of now it's only a correlation, and not proof of causation.

For a while the GHG/Anthro-GW crowd was trying to claim that "Well, the Medieval Climate Optimum was limited to only the tiny part of the western side of the Northern Hemisphere", but they've pretty much given even that up now, with huge amounts of evidence that it was global. Unless, of course, the following areas are considered to be within the western part of the Northern Hemisphere:
Africa:Tyson, P.D., Karlen, W., Holmgren, K. and Heiss, G.A. 2000. The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126.
Huffman, T.N. 1996. Archaeological evidence for climatic change during the last 2000 years in southern Africa. Quaternary International 33: 55-60.
Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J.A., Cooper, G.R.J., Lundblad, K., Partridge, T.C., Scott, L., Sithaldeen, R., Talma, A.S. and Tyson, P.D. 2003. Persistent millennial-scale climatic variability over the past 25,000 years in Southern Africa. Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 2311-2326
Lamb, H., Darbyshire, I. and Verschuren, D. 2003. Vegetation response to rainfall variation and human impact in central Kenya during the past 1100 years. The Holocene 13: 285-292
I can cite studies like this for Antarctica, Asia, North America, Australia/New Zealand, and South America…but you get the point.
------------------------------------------------
The evidence is that the solar cycles, both long- and short-term cycles, have a bigger influence on the global temperature than does GHG concentrations. Example:

- There's a planet in the Solar System that is currently suffering an apparent global warming. It's weather patterns are changing, and long-term patterns show that the polar caps appear to be shrinking.
- Only one problem: The planet is Mars, and we haven't got our fleets of SUV's emitting CO2 there yet.

The IPCC has systematically drummed out (or have had resign on them) anyone who dares to disagree with their orthodoxy. Since anthropogenic global warming is based purely on faith, it is essentially a religion, with adherents who cling tenaciously to it's tenets, regardless of what facts might step in their way. The IPCC is an almost purely political group, with an extremely strong collectivist agenda. Their program to control the worlds economy through coercion is simply using the excuse of GHG's to drive through their control agenda. Now, this probably doesn't bother your average sKerry/Gore worshippers, since their collectivist ethos fit right in with that world view Example:

- The IPCC's early report, 694 pages long, contained within the body of the report the comment (from memory, don't have time to go home and track it down): "No correlation could be found between global temperature increases and greenhouse gas concentrations". Did you read that report? I did, and have a hard-copy of it somewhere at home. What's difficult to understand about "no correlation"?

- But the 25-page political summary stated just exactly the opposite of what the scientific report said, and claimed that there WAS a correlation…which led to the mass resignations from the IPCC of hundreds of climatologists, who put their honesty and honor above the politically-motivated grant-withdrawal penalty. And they've been penalized.

- Guess which one the scientifically-illiterate reporters bothered to read?- Guess which portion of which report got all the publicity?

Let's ignore the fact, as admitted by even the IPCC, that FULL and COMPLETE implementation would have, as it's BEST possible outcome, according to their (shitty) models, a reduction in global temperatures of only 0.1 degrees C over the next 100 years…and that the Kyoto Protocols aren't even going to be considered to be signed by China and India, whose energy growth is (to say the least) prodigious. Or the FACT that they hypocritical assholes in the EU have missed their GHG emissions targets…and have actually INCREASED their CO2 emissions in the past year. So we'll cripple the global economy (and coincidentally, simultaneously condemn billions to death, and take control of what's left) for a literally unmeasurable difference. Hey, makes sense to me.

The latest release is a simple recycling of garbage from bad sources.
-------------It's utter and complete bullshit...to quote:Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.
-------------
The "hockey stick" graph has been thoroughly debunked, and not even the IPCC is willing to stand behind it anymore. The statistical methodology used to create it by Mann et. al. has been demonstrated to take ANY data set, regardless of actual trends, and create the same shape. NO respectable climatologist even references it anymore, other than out of derision for the political science (as opposed to atmospheric science) that created it. As noted above, the current period of "global warming" started back in the middle-1600's or thereabouts. If you carefully pick a starting point for your data of around 1650 AD, you can safely say that it's the warmest it's been in about 350 to 400 years...but if you go farther back than that, the theory falls completely apart.

As for claims of consensus, a petition is circulating with more than 19,00 signatures of scientist and engineers (and more than 2,600 climatologists) which decries the current GHG/AGW pseudo-science. It's available on-line at OISM.org.

I apologize for the length of this e-mail, but I guess I just got on a roll. I'd hate to see someone that I regard as generally sensible accepting the Chicken Little "sky is falling" stuff. Many of the things proposed to help fight AGW, particularly things like conserving resources and improving efficiencies, are near and dear to an engineer's heart. But doing the right things for the wrong reasons generally leads to doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. We should be improving things and reducing pollution of all kinds because it's good to do so, not because we're terrified of an artificial bogeyman.--TB from the frozen north

File under: US Politics, International issues

You should read this.

2006-06-28T10:10:00.000-07:00
Really. Go read the whole thing if you think the police are all "officer friendlies" and exist to "serve and protect". There's almost too much to quote, which I why I encourage you to read the entire account.

It started with this article titled, "Off-duty Seattle officer beaten"

Believe it or not, it appears that they initial account given by the police may not be entirely accurate. Where have I heard that before?

Now we have a new story, "Accounts of off-duty police shooting differ."

The eyewitness/victim stories go more like this:
Plainclothes officer is riding his personal motorcycle down a crowded alley.
He revs his engine to get a lady to move out of his way.
He tries to drive by her and bangs her arm.
Words are exchanged.
He dismounts.
His motorcycle is overturned (by who, we don't know)
"At that point, witnesses say Dornay jumped over the motorcycle toward the woman and tackled her and threw her up against the wall,"
The cop fired [conflicting accounts] of rounds in [conflicting accounts] direction but a bystander ended up getting shot [conflicting accounts] times in the [conflicting accounts] area of his body.
Bystanders rush the guy and beat the snot out of him (apparently think he was a bad guy - were they wrong?)
Just to make the story more interesting, we note the following:
Dornay already faces a separate federal lawsuit brought by an elderly man who claims Dornay and other officers beat him so badly on a Belltown street in 2003 that the man's spleen was ruptured.
According to the court documents, Seattle police conducted an internal investigation of the incident, but exonerated the officers of wrongdoing.
Yet, because of what the lawsuit describes as several "irregularities" with the internal investigation -- witnesses to the encounter were not interviewed, and the officers were able to "re-create" police reports about the incident that they said were "lost" -- the department's Office of Professional Accountability re-opened the case.
Kinda makes you go "hmmmm..."
File under: Only Ones

More machine guns

2006-06-28T09:04:00.000-07:00

Officers were later able to determine that the rifle was, in fact, an automatic weapon modified into a machine gun.
An automatic weapon IS a machine gun.

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." - Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center (VPC) - 1989

File Under: Media bias/ignorance

The UN conference on small arms

2006-06-28T07:38:00.000-07:00
I haven't posted much on it because others are doing a good job. Check it out.

File under: International issues, US Politics, Gun Laws

Rapid Fire Pistols!!

2006-06-28T07:00:00.000-07:00

A thief broke into a popular gun shop in Seminole County, Fla., and stole 12 pistols for the third time in as many months, according to a Local 6 News report. The man was then videotaped stealing rapid-fire pistols, the report said.
Holy Sweet Bananas, what do we do!?! He's got a RAPID-FIRE PISTOL! Wait. You're telling me that there's no such thing as a "rapid-fire pistol" and that they almost all shoot only as fast as you can pull the trigger (except for sigle-action revolvers and certain... "modified" Glock pistols)? Hmm... Well, I'm going to go ahead and use the term anyway. [/sensationalist journalist]
"My guess is they would be used to commit other criminal acts on the streets of Central Florida," Casselberry police Lt. Dennis Stewart said. "So, it's a more than a probable guess that they're not going to be going into legitimate business but some type of a criminal enterprise."
We've got freaking Sherlock Holmes on our hands here. Denny, you're telling me that this guy did NOT drop in through the roof and steal these guns in order to use them in "legitimate business"??? Your powers of deduction are astonishing.
File under: Media bias/ignorance

The privileged class - Officer Jason Matthew Brown

2006-06-28T06:50:00.000-07:00
File this one with the other "only ones professional enough" cases. Derek Butler is the victim.

On the night of the crash, Brown was rushing to the 2200 block of Cedar Street to help an officer catch a fleeing drug suspect. He had on his lights and siren when he drove the wrong way down Dr. W.J. Hodge Street (formerly 21st Street) and hit Butler's Mitsubishi at the Market Street intersection. Butler, 38, of the 1200 block of South Floyd Street, died at the scene.
Stengel also said grand jurors were told of Brown's past driving record, which includes several traffic violations and a wreck in 1999 that killed 74-year-old William O'Bannon. Brown, then 17, was attempting an improper lane change when his pickup hit O'Bannon, who was standing behind his truck after running out of gas in the space between the merging lane on Watterson Expressway next to Crittenden Drive, according to the accident report.
Before becoming an officer, Brown was stopped by police four times between 1998 and 2001. He was charged with reckless driving, running a traffic light, disregarding a stop sign, having expired plates, failing to produce his insurance card and speeding. Brown pleaded guilty to disregarding a traffic light and a stop sign in separate 1998 incidents, and speeding 18 mph over the limit in 2001. A reckless-driving charge in 1998 was amended on the condition that he attend traffic school.
I don't hate cops. I hate that they're treated differently than you and I, because they're so professional and all. I'm not the only one:
"It seems like (police) get away with everything," she said. "I guess if you have a badge, you're qualified to kill anybody by any means necessary."

File under: Only Ones

House GOP to Focus on Abortion, Guns

2006-06-28T06:39:00.000-07:00
The article is mostly NOT about abortion OR guns, but that's beside the point.
Two measures relate to the rights of gun owners. One would prohibit the confiscation of legal firearms during national emergencies, barring practices such as the one that officials said arose in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit.
Sure, there's a good idea. We observe that sometimes officials ignore the Constitution, so we'll write a law that says they're not allowed to do that. Something seems amiss here...

Whatever the other "measure" is, it's not mentioned in this article.

On a side note, the article also mentions that:
House Republicans also said they would hold a vote on legislation to apply gambling laws to the Internet.
Yes! Please! Protect me from my own sinful nature! I have no control over myself! I need the State to be my nanny!

File under: US Politics, Nanny State

Guns, Bar, Assault Rifle!!!

2006-06-27T07:13:00.000-07:00
It's a MSM journalist's dream come true.

Let's see what happened:
Shortly before 3 a.m., officers saw a case they thought might contain a firearm in the back of the truck. - To the best of my knowledge, from researching here, there's nothing illegal about having a firearm in a case in your vehicle.
Officers talked to the men and then found an AK-47 assault rifle inside the case. - Wait, exactly what happened there? Why were the police allowed to search their personal property?
Two Kansas City, Mo., men, ages 20 and 22, and a 22-year-old Kansas City, Kan., man were issued notices to appear in court. - Was there even a crime committed (other than the confiscation of the guns by the officers)?
Police have confiscated several weapons found in vehicles in the same area over the past few months. - No mention is made of any law being broken, only property seized. Apparently that doesn't bother anyone in the press.
Now we have the dubious use of terms like "AK-47" and "assault rifle" to deal with. An assault rifle is defined as "a type of automatic rifle generally defined as a selective fire rifle or carbine, chambering intermediate-powered ammunition." So these guys were carrying a machine gun, and they weren't arrested? They were just asked to appear in court? Again, the term AK-47 refers to a specific model of assault rifle, which again is a machine gun and has been heavily regulated since 1934.
Which is more likely: The men were found in possession of an unregistered machine gun and were simply asked to appear in court, OR the journalist got all excited about getting to write a story about mean ol' assault rifles and throw around words like AK-47 willy-nilly with total disregard for factual integrity?
Update: Here is another account of the story. It adds: that "three Kansas City area men received notices to appear in court for having firearms near a drinking establishment."
Update II: Here is the Lawrence, KS statute that basically says:
(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a firearm within a drinking establishment or on publicly accessible property in close proximity to the premises of any drinking establishment.
(C) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a dangerous knife within a drinking establishment.
Of course, the devil is in the details. "Close proximity" is 200 feet. Folding pocket knives under 4" are exempt. Firearms in a case are exempt. Firearms unloaded without a magazine or other speed loading device are exempt.
So, unless the "AK-47" (or either of the pistols) was loaded in the case, the guys shouldn't be in any trouble.
File under: Media bias/ignorance, Gun Laws

Guns = Crime. What? What media bias?

2006-06-27T06:44:00.000-07:00

City takes guns, crime off street
It's a simple enough premise: The more guns you take off the streets, the less violent crime occurs on the streets.
"Anytime you take 102 guns off the street, there's going to be some impact on violent crime," said Lt. Brian Russell, a supervisor in the task force. "We're just hoping it continues."
Think about what you just said, Brian. If there was a definitive causal relationship between "guns on the street" and "violent crime", why are you "just hoping it continues"? If you're so sure that guns cause crime, you should be confident that as you keep taking them away, crime will plummet.
File under: Media bias/ignorance

Create registry of gun criminals

2006-06-27T06:24:00.000-07:00
This is from Canada, so temper your expectations.

It's an editorial response to a gun grabber's assertation that:
It's important that there are controls over civilian possession of guns if you want to stop illegal possession.
The part that's supposed to be the main point of the response:
Rather than blaming an intimate object for societies woes, let's go after the criminals internationally, create a registry of criminals whom we know misuse firearms and give the money saved to the only entity to combat crime worldwide - the police.
I think the guy's heart is in the right place, but his eyes just aren't totally open. First of all, instead of creating a registry of people who misuse guns, why don't you keep them in jail (assuming that the word "misuse" means "commit crimes with")? As I've said before, if a person can't be trusted topossess a gun, they can't be trusted to do anything without being supervised (ergo they belong inprisonn).

Secondly, this poor fella still thinks that the police are the only ones professional enough to combat crime. Go ahead and call 911 (or whatever you guys have up there) in the middle of the night when someone's in your house and wait for the professionals to rescue you. As for me and my house, we will "combat crime" as needed.

PS - does that make me a "vigilante"?

File under: International issues, Gun Laws

Catch-Up

2006-06-26T11:22:00.000-07:00
I've been out for a week, as those (both) of you who read here regularly have noticed. Here's a quick rundown of what's been going on that I'd blog about if I had the time or energy to comment on.

Should the sale of realistic-looking toy guns be banned? - I told you this would happen.
Some question value of proposal to ban toy guns - What about "cylindrical objects"?
Gun culture seen at root of violence - Right. Bad people have nothing to do with it.
Deputy charged with threatening colleague with gun - If only we could keep them harassing each other.
Study Tracks Police Brutality Claims - I thought they were an elite class...
Police Try to Halt More Soccer Violence - Maybe "soccer culture" is the root of violence.
That's it for now. More as it comes to me.
File under: Nanny State, Gun Laws, Only Ones

If you think privacy isn't a big deal or that you actually have privacy...

2006-06-16T12:19:00.000-07:00
READ THIS

File under: Big Brother

Good for you, but why not me?

2006-06-16T11:46:00.000-07:00

Police say officer justified in killing
The officer was sitting in the vehicle at a stop sign at 109th Street and Wentworth Avenue about 7:45 p.m. Wednesday, when the man jumped onto the hood, police said. According to police, Lofton said: "I'm going to kill you! I'm going to kill you!"
I'm glad she was okay. She was attacked, threatened, and in fear for her life. She justifiably shot him in self-defense with a weapon she was carrying with her.

Why is it though, that you and I must remain defenseless in the same situation (seeing as how this is in Chicago)? The officer wasn't even on duty, so why could she carry a gun around for (obviously justifiable) protection when you and I aren't allowed to do the same?

I guess we're just not professional enough.
File under: Only Ones