Just a quick follow-up to last Sunday's rant about Montpelier police photographing high school students at a peace demonstration. At a raucous city council meeting it was decided that the photographs would be destroyed and that the policy of photographing protesters at any demonstration would be visited. Here's reporter Stephen Mills from yesterday's Times-Argus:

After a lengthy debate, the council agreed to look carefully at policies and procedures related to the policing of parades and protests and craft new guidelines. The council also gave repeated assurances that photographs taken of the students and protesters at another peace rally in January had been destroyed.

Mayor Chuck Karparis opened the proceedings by saying that Montpelier, as the state capital, had to expect more than its fair share of public protests and rallies and had to work to ensure that rights to assemble and protest were protected.

"I think the council's role here tonight is to listen to what folks have to say," said Karparis.

He then read the lengthy statement expressing the city's regret at the concern caused by the photographs and pledged that the photographs would be destroyed.

I'm sure it was the intense pressure brought to bear by Alphecca International...

... Enough "lovey-dovey" crap, let's get back to guns and stuff. Let's visit the Illinois legislature where they (unbelievably) want to enact yet more gun control. You know why? Because everything they've done so far hasn't worked a damn. Because they (all the liberal legislators, as well as head jerk-off Chicago Mayor Richard Daley) still fail to realize that mutant criminals don't obey laws. That's what makes them criminals! Here's a sorry quote from today's Chicago Tribune editorial which I will comment on in between each stupid paragraph:

They have enjoyed precious little traction in recent years. Despite widespread support from law enforcement organizations, Mayor Richard Daley and other political leaders, they have been derailed by a formidable gun lobby and its legislative allies.

The "formidable gun lobby" simply represents the (huge body of) folks who support it! Same as AARP or the NEA or gay lobbyists or black lobbyists or...

The gun lobby hasn't changed the intensity of its efforts, but the political equation has changed.

These long-overdue proposals are likely to find a more receptive atmosphere in a Senate that no longer fears the iron fist of former Senate President James "Pate" Philip (R-Wood Dale). Philip managed to quash nearly every gun control measure that crossed his path when he led the Senate, most famously stalling and ultimately watering down then-Gov. George Ryan's Safe Neighborhoods initiative in 1999-2000.

This year, gun measures have some better prospects, but no guarantee of approval.

The measures include:

- A limit of one handgun purchase within a 30-day period for individuals. This would help prevent gun-runners from loading up on armfuls of weapons and reselling them to gangbangers and ex-cons who can't legally own a weapon.

Here's a shock to the idiot who wrote this stupid editorial -- illegal gun-runners don't frequent legitimate gun-dealers. They buy their guns below the radar of law enforcement and ... well, they're criminals -- and like any thugs, they don't obey the laws or do business with shops that also obey the laws.

- A ballistic identification databank for pistols and revolvers--a sort of DNA system for guns that would help police trace the purchase of guns used in crimes.

Ballistic fingerprinting doesn't work. Just cruise through my postings for all the evidence you need. This is an "iffy" technology that can never work unless the whole country were forced to register and test-fire every gun in existence to provide a workable database.

So here's the thing: Let's say that tomorrow, a law is passed that requires every gun owner to bring every gun he/she owns to the local police station to be test-fired so a ballistic fingerprint can be made of the cartridge and spent bullet. Most of the law-abiding citizens will probably do it. But all the mutant thugs, the criminals, the drug-dealers, the gang members, the people who the law is most after, will never show up. Their guns will go un-tested and un-registered. Illinois will create --at huge taxpayer expense-- a giant bureaucracy that has NO effect on reducing crime!

- Instant background checks for those who purchase weapons at gun shows.

This already happens with all licensed FFL firearm dealers in the state. There is no way to control, and no laws will help control, private individuals doing deals in the "parking lot." This has always been the silly argument of all those pining to close the "gun-show loop-hole."

- State licensing of all firearm dealers in Illinois.

I thought they already were. But even if they aren't (by the state,) they are by the Federal Government. How would this clause change anything or help catch criminals?

What a stupid bill! And every person in Illinois should be writing, calling, emailing their state representative and demanding that they reject this legislation. Come on folks, your freedom and liberty and rights are on the line.

Lastly, I would never advocate violence against anyone and I don't condone it but if I were to pick up a newspaper one day and read that Mayor Richard Daley fell into a pothole and hurt himself I would buy a six-pack of Molson Ice and celebrate.

So the "function" I had tonight was taking my three cats to the annual "Rabies Clinic" at the fire-station. I put them through this every two years. The local Dr. Vet gives rabies and distemper shots (both together only $12.00! for each animal) just a thousand feet from my house. And so I chase my cats throughout the house, under beds, into closets (because somehow they just know that ten minutes of torture are coming.) Being pushed into cat-carriers, driven all of a quarter mile, 30 seconds out of the carrier while the Vet vaccinates them, a minute drive back... Total misery with all of them acting as if I was taking them to Marie Antoinette's guillotine. Each of them in their own carrier, crying -- wailing like young children being skinned alive...

Then I take them home and cut-up chunks of Turkey to "reward" them for surviving this ordeal. They seem to forgive me after a few minutes but I wish there were an easier way. Only Rainbow -- who will be 19 years old April 7th -- took it in stride. Anyway, they are all indoor cats but I sleep better knowing they are protected against a couple of terrible diseases. Because I want them with me for all eternity. In body, and then in spirit. Tough love that they don't understand but when they see those cat carriers... yipes!

I didn't sleep last night -- money worries -- but tonight, after this bi-annual event, I think I will. And they'll all pile up on the bed with me. Anyway, give your own pets a hug tonight and tell them you love them. They're the best friends you'll ever have. God made dogs and cats just a little extra-special. He made them to give us love and comfort and protection and companionship. They ask for almost nothing in return. I always feel terrible putting them through this thing. Sure, intellectually I can tell myself it's for their own good but I really think I wind up feeling worse and more emotionally drained after this re-occurring ordeal.

Isn't that how it is with your children? You love them and would do anything for them. No matter what they do, you will always love them and protect them and care for them forever. And you (should) hate having to discipline them or do something that --yes, it's for their own good-- helps them even though you know it will make them miserable.

I didn't mean for this to be a big post. Or a "mushy" post. I guess I've run the gamut this week. But since I'm sharing my life and thoughts with the whole world here on the web... Anyway, my cats are protected for another couple years. I still might not sleep tonight because my finances are in a wreck but at least I know that some of the ones I love are protected. I wish I could extend that to my whole human family. My parents, brothers, aunts and uncles, cousins, friends... I wish it were as simple as a short trip to the fire-station for a couple of shots. I wish all of them -- and all of you -- wellness. Thanks for putting up with me and for stopping by...

Hosting Matters (my web hosting service) is still "migrating" all the websites on the "Calisto" server (including Alphecca) over to a new server at another location. The old server has finally died. Apparently I was smart to upload my files to both locations each time I updated my page because some folks have lost a weeks' worth of updates. This also means Alphecca.com will have a new IP address. But there have been problems. If the page doesn't display correctly, try viewing the archive page (just click my link above any post, or the date link on the sidebar.) Both my home page and the archive page are identical. Some photos seem to have been lost even though I've uploaded them twice this week. Minor stuff such as the top of the page image...

What I'm trying to say is that any problems viewing Alphecca over the past week, and probably for the next week, have been due to Hosting Matters and they've informed all of us on that server that they are comping us this month. Which is good of them. They have been a good web host. Anyway, please bear with me and the hosting service while they sort this out. Glenn! Be forwarned, you're next...

Well okay, so it's Tuesday night but there isn't much to report this week. I rate the stories on Yahoo's Gun Debate page based on the bias exhibited and there were only a few new stories this past week. Here's the table:

Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page Articles
Sample Date	For More Gun Control Or Is Anti-Gun	Not More Gun Control Or Is Pro 2nd Amendment	Neutral Articles	Concurrent Events Notes
03/11/03	12	4	4	Judge dismisses gun makers as defendants in suit
03/05/03	11	2	7
Feb. Avg.	11	2	7	Colorado laws, S&W .50 revolver, Ashcroft/ATF prosecutions
Jan. Avg.	15	2.5	3	Ashcroft, sniper victim lawsuits, England gang murders/ban on toy guns
Dec. Avg.	14	4	3	Canadian Registry fiasco & NJ "smart-gun" law
Nov. Avg.	17	3	2	D.C. snipers

So you can see there is a slight jump in "pro-gun" stories because the judge in a suit filed by California Cities dismissed gun makers, distributors, and trade organizations as defendants in the case. I covered this story earlier this week and don't really have anything to add. There were a couple other stories but mostly it was a quiet week.

I promise to get Exell re-installed this coming weekend so the moving chart will appear next Wednesday.

---

I have to be at work early the next two days and tomorrow night I have a "function" to attend so I will return here Thursday night.

I just watched the new Let's Make A Deal on NBC. I was prepared not to like it because everything NBC puts on these days is such dreck. But I have to admit that it's pretty good. Monty Hall is the executive producer and the show sticks with the spirit of his original show. I didn't catch the name of the emcee/host but he's likable and does a good job. All-in-all a lot of fun. Nothing like naked greed to make for an enjoyable hour.

I have the same feelings most bloggers have; no one knows I'm here... I love and am thankful for the 320 or so "unique visitors" that stop by daily but I have this huge ego that needs to be fed. How can I attract more visitors to my site short of showing naked pictures of myself (oh wait, that would drive EVERYONE away...) I'm just feeling sorry for myself; pay no attention --clear the area and scroll down... I'd like to think my commentary is (almost) as good as the guys who get 100K visitors every day and make $80K in donations but I don't know how to get the word out about me. Where's the world's smallest violin when I need it?

I guess what I really need is more feedback, more comments. As regulars know, I have published a lot of comments that are very critical of me (the Comments Column isn't up right now because no one has commented in a couple weeks... See recent archives...) I don't practice censorship here. I am as zealous about the First Amendment as I am the Second. Anyway, I really am going to have to start a comments-at-each-post feature. That will be the goal I set for myself for this Spring --if it ever comes to Northern New England...

I've just paid up Hosting Matters to keep my website up for another six months so I'm not going anywhere. (Just in case you wonder where your generous donations go...) Over the past four months that I've had the donation-thing up on the sidebar, you folks have been nice enough to help me out with $90. dollars. That's totally cool and has paid the bills to keep this website up. Thank you!

Anyway, I have the day off and I've already posted a bunch (so scroll down and start reading and clicking) and will now enjoy the rest of the day doing other things. Stop by tomorrow morning for the Wednesday gun debate table. Incidentally, I have the weekend off (I get one once every month) and so there will be a lot of postings this weekend. And I also plan to (as many bloggers have) put up a "best of" listing. Anyway, to all of you who are kind enough to visit me every so often, thanks for stopping by and do email a comment to me now and then if you have one. You can do that here:

Comments

I have, in the past, said that I am not for or against starting a conflict with Iraq. That is, I don't know that WMD is the correct impetus for war. And I've also said the real issue is that Hussein is a madman who has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his subjects, not to mention having invaded two countries and launched SCUD missiles at Israel. I do think Iraq needs to be liberated but God knows there are a lot of countries that need to be liberated from demented despots. In any event, the consensus around the world is that Iraq needs to be disarmed. If that is the argument then there's gonna be a rumble.

In today's Wall Street Journal Kofi Annan has an editorial which --reading between the lines-- says the U.S. and Britain should wait awhile... Here's a quote:

The Charter of the United Nations is categorical. "In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations," it confers on the Security Council "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." That responsibility can seldom have weighed more heavily on the members of the council than it does this week. Within the next day or two, they have to make a momentous choice.

The context of that choice is an issue whose importance is by no means confined to Iraq: the threat posed to all humanity by weapons of mass destruction. The whole international community needs to act together to curb the proliferation of these terrible weapons, wherever it may be happening.

But the immediate and most urgent aspect of that task is to ensure that Iraq no longer has such weapons. Why? Because Iraq has actually used them in the past, and because it has twice, under its present leadership, committed aggression against its neighbors--against Iran in 1980, and against Kuwait in 1990.

That is why the Security Council is determined to disarm Iraq of these weapons, and has passed successive resolutions since 1991 requiring Iraq to disarm.

But then he says:

Sometimes it may be necessary to use force to deal with threats to the peace--and the charter makes provision for that. But war must always be a last resort. It should be used only when every reasonable alternative has been tried--in the present case, only if we are sure that every peaceful means of achieving Iraq's disarmament has been exhausted. The United Nations, founded to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," has a duty to search for a peaceful solution until the last possible moment.

He's acknowledging that Iraq has these weapons. He admits they've used these weapons. He states clearly that the Security Council has passed resolution after resolution over the past 12 years to no effect. President Bush has made this same case in his address to the U.N. But Annan wants us to hold off and let the inspections continue. What's the point? How long will the U.N. continue it's impotent stance? Resolutions haven't worked. Inspectors haven't worked. Sanctions haven't worked. Threats haven't worked. There comes a moment when you have to "shit or get off the pot."

Even the Washington Post admits in today's editorial:

...But it's important to understand that any extension of the inspectors' mandate would only delay, not prevent, a conflict. That's because the three months of inspections so far have demonstrated what arms control experts have been saying all along: that without a strategic decision by Saddam Hussein to fully cooperate, it is not possible even to locate Iraq's most deadly weapons, much less ensure disarmament.

That Iraq's dictator has failed to make that decision has been obvious since Dec. 8, when he submitted a declaration to the Security Council asserting that he had no chemical and biological arms. You don't have to listen to the Bush administration to regard that as a lie; even French officials say they believe Iraq still has those arms. The declaration served to detach the inspection process from reality. The inspectors have been put in the position of verifying that Iraq has no weapons -- by definition an impossible task -- rather than overseeing the destruction of those that exist. The only exceptions are the few score surface-to-surface missiles that Iraq could not avoid declaring -- but the lethality of these arms is minor compared with the probable hidden stores of anthrax, sarin and VX nerve agent.

So why do the inspectors sound so upbeat? Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei are international civil servants who are desperate to prove that agencies like theirs can be effective. Their reports to the council have been constructed as arguments for continued inspections, rather than as reports on Iraq's compliance. Mr. Blix has dodged repeated requests that he judge Iraq against the terms of Resolution 1441; instead, he has retailed indications of "progress" on such issues as interviews with scientists, which in turn are hailed by some as proof that the "inspections are working." Such discussions have a surreal quality, because they ignore the elephantine fact that Iraq has still not disclosed its weapons. Mr. Blix doggedly pursues "unanswered questions" about huge stores of unaccounted-for materials -- but in reality, his team has little of substance to do. It can only wait to see if Iraq will be more forthcoming, or hope for a lucky break that will lead it to hidden stockpiles.

Saddam Hussein is jerking everyone around. There are smoking guns lying around all over the country and Annan is still implying we should "give peace a chance." He states that there are problems (regimes with weapons of mass destruction) all over the globe that need attending to and that how the Security Council deals with Iraq will set the precedent for dealing with subsequent similar situations. Well here's a clue: If the U.N. refuses to deal properly and swiftly with Iraq, why would any other country feel compelled to acquiesce to a resolution from the Security Council? Why should North Korea fear action by the U.N.? Heck, they've admitted they are in violation of treaties, they've thrown out U.N. inspectors, and they've turned off cameras and fully admitted they have restarted their nuclear reactors. And the U.N. has done... nothing.

Why would murderous dictators in various African countries stop their hideous actions for fear the U.N. might intervene when Annan and several of the members of the Security Council are clearly against any armed intervention? Threats and resolutions are meaningless if not backed up by swift, armed actions. Laws are worthless if they have no teeth. Even the cops in England now carry guns.

Look, if there's going to be a war then do it now and get it over with. To not do so renders any proclomation, resolution, sanction by the U.N. and the Security Council as nothing more then empty words that no one is going to heed or pay attention to. Say what you mean but more importantly, mean what you say. Otherwise, Saddam will just keep laughing at you and playing games with the world. And he will continue to slaughter his people and threaten his neighbors. Flush the toilet.

Publicola has a major post on why the right to own and bear arms is an absolute right. Here's a quote:

So a Natural Right to Arms was bestowed upon us by God, or if you prefer our very nature, our evolution if you will. Hence it is something beyond the reach of any law or any social prejudice, or at least it should be.

If it is a Natural Right then why are there laws prohibiting it? Mainly because lawmakers do not comprehend the essence of this Right or its importance. Or perhaps they do. Weapons prohibitions have been around as long as there have been societies. Or more accurately as long as there have been dictators. No tyrant or group of tyrants wants an armed subject who may revolt.

Go read the entire post of his because it's excellent and merits a wide readership. I'll wait...

OK, I agree completely and in fact have said so several times here. In this post from November, I said:

I want to address the typical urban dweller who owns a firearm for self-defense. So... I will just say that the stakes are much higher now. There are people out there who want what you have and are willing to kill you for it. There are people out there who hate you and will kill you for it. There are people out there for whom only your (my) death will satisfy them. No matter where you live, there is always an implied danger. It has become a part of our everyday lives.

A simple explanation offered by "liberals" is that the prevalence of firearms has contributed to this. But it hasn't. The number of guns per capita, that is, the ratio of gun-owners in the population has actually gone down over the last 100 years. And, as most of us know, the amount of regulations and restrictions (that's gun-control for the un-initiate) has gone up. Yet deadly violence has continued to escalate. I mentioned this in a previous posting and I will again now. Every animal, every organism, every plant, every man and woman has several fundamental imperitives: To eat, to procreate, and to defend itself. No thinking person would ever begrudge an animal for using every tool, whether teeth or claws, to defend it's life and it's children or family. And most animals have such defenses. Sharp claws and teeth. Even plants, through evolution, develope some very efficient defenses.

Mankind has no such defenses. He must rely on tools. Stones, spears, arrows, and finally, firearms. The things we admire most about humans are their compassion, their caring, their child-rearing abilities, the close family and community units they have developed. Yet then we feel repelled when they (we actually) respond in that most innate response to danger and threat to ourselves and loved-ones. Why? Why is it now wrong for a human being to defend himself from danger?

Because "The State" will protect us? Has it? From thieves and junkies and car-jackers and rapists and... Who has "The State" protected us from? External National threats, yes. Fine. And that, to my reading of the Constitution of The United States should be the ONLY defense they should be responsible for. For the common defense. But what about the personal? The invader of your home and the immediate threat to your family? That, the State is useless, powerless, impotent to help you with. All they can do is respond AFTER the fact and try to clean-up and solve. Cops are fine, but always after the fact.

Every tool. A gun is a magical thing. Small but heavy. Marvelously efficient at helping you to defend yourself. To protect your home and family.

I believe the quote is something such as, "God made all men, Colt made them equal."

Every tool. In fact, for most of us, the only tool available to us. It is our right. A God given impetus built into our genetic makeup; to protect ourselves and loved-ones. For almost all of us, that small tool, the gun is the only thing we have at our disposal. And so, that small piece of steel is a comfort, a balm, an antidote to the nervousness and fear that all of us live with to some extent but keep submerged so we can go about our daily lives. It is the only thing we have available to re-assure ourselves that if the un-thinkable happens, we can react as we are designed to, that we can do our duty to our imperative to protect and defend. In many ways, the gun does more then any anti-anxiety pill ever could.

And like any precious tool, we love it, hopefully with respect and awe. It is necessary. You don't have to use it, you hope you never have to use it, but it's comforting to know it's there. (Almost sounds like the slogan for a newspaper.) Here's a news flash: I'm gay. And I've been hit with tire-chains, beat-up, and had a knife stuck in me multiple times, all because people hate me, because I'm gay. I used to fear going out of my home. I used to fear leaving a gay-bar late at night, I used to fear hearing someone breaking the glass on my door to break-in. Now, through the simple comfort of having the right tool at hand, or in pocket, or on the night-stand, I NO LONGER HAVE ANY OF THOSE FEARS. And friends, that is worth a hundred times what I paid for that revolver. It is a tool I have not had to use, but I am comforted to know it is there and ready. And I will use it if I have to. Something within me compels me to protect myself. Something compels all of us to protect ourselves.

Do I love my gun? Not like I love pizza, or my family. But I do love the security it provides me. The feeling that in a huge world frought with danger -- not of my making-- I still have control over my own security and destiny. That if I lose my possessions it won't be because I hid in fear. That if I lose my life it won't be because some mutant took it from me without a fight. That if someone threatens my loved ones I can put up a defense as ferocious as that of any animal in this jungle called Earth. Yes, guns have been and will be used for terrible actions, but many more un-documented times, un-reported by the media, the gun will be used to fulfill one of the ultimate imperatives of mankind; protection.

That was a major post of mine (which went virtually un-noticed) and I find that I wouldn't change a thing in it on hindsight. Anyway, Publicola is right-on-the-money and is a very good new blog. Gun-rights enthusiasts should pay attention to it.

Dave Russell draws the parallels between what the U.S. faced at the start of World War Two and what we face now. Such wisdom from a young man! I hope you all have him on your daily read list.

---

And, of course, you should have Aubrey Turner on your must read list too. He discusses the problem of unions and how they are probably a thing of the past. Specifically he talks about American Airlines and the Broadway musicians' strike.

I agree with him. At one time unions were very much needed to protect workers from abusive employers but those days are past. These days, unions do little more then protect incompetent employees. A perfect example would be the teachers' unions; it is almost impossible to fire a lousy teacher. Or cop. Or government worker (which is why it was important that President Bush went against Democrat's wishes to unionize employees in the Homeland Security Office.)

You'll find it here at Coyote At The Dog Show. We've all been married to or worked for...

---

And Dave Hanlon views a 1950's sci-fi movie with startling similarities to the Iraq situation...

---

And Mike Silverman confirms that The Simpsons really is (still) the cleverist show on TV.

Once again, I Googled myself today. I know... it's tough to stop... Anyway, I discovered a few more folks nice enough to have me on their blogrolls. Naturally, I've added them to my "Great Links / Friends" list.

First up is News Pundit who is "Your Worldwide Source for Superior News Blogging" and I thank him very much and it really is a cool site. I think most of you will agree with his slant. So go visit him. Now.

Okay, now that you're back, I've also been blogrolled by Six Foot Pole which is about all sorts of stuff under differently listed blogs but he (or she, I don't know) lists Alphecca under "Blogolicious..." Need I say more... Impeccable taste and all that...

Anyway, just a reminder that if you are kind enough to blogroll me, please (don't be bashfull) let me know (my inflated ego loves it) and I will --besides thanking you-- add you to my blogroll.

Well, I guess I've done enough damage to my reputation today so I will be back tomorrow (late) night with more of my bon-mots... Thanks for stopping by!

Here's a link to the wide world of Duct Tape art... Sticks in my mind...

From the New York Post:

HEAVILY armed al Qaeda thugs practiced storming a school, shooting children and taking hostages in a videotaped training exercise, The Post has learned.

The terror rehearsal took place under the mandate of al Qaeda's operations chief, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mohammed, who was arrested in Pakistan March 1, is being interrogated by U.S. authorities at a secret location as the United States tries to learn of other attacks he may have been plotting.

And some are worried that we might be torturing this piece of crap? Don't follow the link if you've just eaten breakfast...

Several California cities and their trial-lawyers have lost big-time in their suits against gun-makers and distributors. From Reuters:

Gun makers claimed victory on Friday after a San Diego judge dismissed them, weapons distributors and trade associations from a products liability lawsuit brought by major California cities against the firearms industry.

Only a half-dozen gun dealers remain in the lawsuit, which is scheduled for trial in late April.

The municipalities, including San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco, claim the industry created a public nuisance by supplying guns to ineligible buyers and violated state business laws by making misleading statements about the dangers of gun ownership. The suit also alleged that the firearms industry failed to incorporate safety features and to prevent guns from falling into the hands of juveniles and criminals.

Filed in 1999, the suit named 38 defendants, including weapons manufacturers and distributors and trade associations, and was brought by 12 municipalities. It is one of a dozen actions filed nationwide by public entities, and was patterned on the successful tobacco litigation brought by 46 U.S. states, which ended in a $40 billion settlement in 1998.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Vincent DiFiglia heard arguments from 36 attorneys during Friday's hearing before dismissing the 29 weapons makers, six distributors and three trade associations, finding too tenuous a relationship between them and the dealers.

This is great news. Once again, the courts are letting the trial lawyers know they can't suck the firearm industry dry the way they did the tobacco companies. And once again, liberals are finding out that they can't legislate by litigation. This is a major, major victory that will set a huge precedent for suits filed by other cities around the country. From the New York Times:

"This is a definitive victory for us," said Lawrence G. Keane, the general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry trade association, and a "devastating defeat" for the cities and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which had joined the suit.

Jonathan Lowy, a lawyer for the Brady Center, said, "We are happy with half of the decision, and disappointed with the other half."

"...happy with half of the decision???" Because a handful of gun dealers still remain in the suit? Hey Lowy, you lost BIG TIME! You're not going to realize a big pot of money. If the dealers did something wrong then they deserve to be prosecuted, but you and the cities and the lawyers have lost any chance for a big windfall of cash. Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing like a lottery winner.

Folks, I've said this so often but the simple fact is you can't hold a company responsible for making a legal product if that product is later misused by a mutant thug. Just as Ford can't be held liable because O.J. led police on a slow motion chase up a California freeway, so a gun maker or distributor can't be held liable because a firearm was used criminally. It's so simple.

But of course, the cities and lawyers involved will never admit the dirty little secret of theirs: This was never about getting firearms off the street. It was about money. Lot's of it. And now that factor has been erased from the equation. Quite a few cities have now lost these suits or seen them tossed out of court. I expect and hope other cities will drop their suits rather then continuing to waste tax-payer money pursuing what they can't win.

According to a story in the Times Argus, Montpelier police took photographs of all the students who participated in an anti-war rally at the state capital last Wednesday. Here's a quote from David Mace's story:

Police maintain that taking the photos was simply good police procedure, and that there are legitimate police intelligence reasons for retaining them.

"There's nothing sinister, it's just good police work," said Montpelier Police Chief Douglas Hoyt. "We don't have a database going, we're not culling the pictures out and sending them to anybody else."

Hoyt's officers took numerous photographs of roughly 60 Montpelier High School students who walked out of school on Wednesday as part of a national student strike against a possible war with Iraq. The students marched to the State House, where they had an impromptu question and answer session with Gov. James Douglas before rallying on the State House steps and then marching downtown.

This is outrageous behavior on the part of the Montpelier police department. The students did nothing wrong and had every right to peaceably assemble. I may not agree with their views but I support the First Amendment as vigorously as the Second Amendment. I especially object to Hoyt's contention that there is nothing wrong with retaining the photos. Here's his stupid, lame excuse:

Hoyt said the photos could be used by officers to identify and discuss youths and potentially illegal activities they might have been witnessed engaging in, and compared the department's taking them to a newspaper's, tourist's, or friend's photographing events in a public place.

"We're keeping them because we came by them legally and appropriately," he said...

If there was a problem with the demonstration then the police should have made arrests. There was no problem and the pictures should be discarded. He had the nerve to ask the Times-Argus for copies of all the photos they took as well. Fortunately, the paper declined. Montpelier is famous for having one of the most abusive, abnoxious forces in the state. Hoyt is a piece of crap who should immediately be fired from his job and run out of the state. In my opinion he is anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-Bill of Rights, and his behavior and tactics are no different then those of the oppressive forces we are trying to eliminate in Iraq.

The Montpelier City Council should act RIGHT NOW to excise this tumor in their city. They won't --of course-- because no one in Montpelier was actually born in Vermont. They're all leftist-liberals who firmly believe in controlling everyone's lives and they like having a fascist police force serving them. If a cop tried this in one of the small, native towns in Vermont he'd get stomped.

((So Jeff, how do you really feel about this...))

---

Update: 3/13/03 The Montpelier City Council has decided to have the photographs destroyed and to examine police procedures for future demonstrations.

...at least temporarily turned off one of my email accounts, jeff@alphecca.com, because there was so much spam mail coming to it. So if you are trying to reach me, just continue to use the "comments" address...