Okay, I'll calm down. I've ranted a lot this week. Let me find serenity now.

Monday was, of course, Eat An Animal For PETA Week. My buddy at One Little Victory is demonstrating just how it's done. Rare, I hope!

Mamma Bear reports on the unrest in Iran. I really believe that turbans will unravel on their own as the rather large crowd of dissidents -- the young people who are not stupid, they know how the civilized world is living -- continues to protest and more...

Weekend Pundit is sounding the deathknell for ATT. They're being broken up yet again...

I've been remiss lately in mentioning my friend Craig's Boone Country. If you're into hunting or shooting, this is a nice, non-controversial blog dedicated to sportspeople. Just head over there and enjoy.

And while you're at it, if you are looking for good political reading, the often blogrolled but (sadly) rarely linked to (at least by me) Chicago Boyz has all sorts of good stuff up.

Okay, I'm going to try to continue to calm down. I meet with my new lawyer tomorrow to try to sort out my life. I'll be back tomorrow (Friday) night. I wish you all wellness.

Not satisfied that the bill to protect gun makers went down in flames, the shrill left has filed a lawsuit claiming that the Justice Department and the ATF hasn't done enough to prevent the so-called "assault weapons." From the AP:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, along with the Million Mom March, said the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed gun makers to replace the housing for the firing mechanism on legally owned semiautomatic assault weapons, which the groups say violates the 1994 Assault Weapon Act.

The law makes it illegal for a person to manufacture, transfer or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon. Weapons possessed before the law was enacted are exempt.

The Brady Campaign contends in its lawsuit that manufacturing a new housing -- or "receiver" -- is prohibited because that in effect creates a new gun, and that gun should be banned.

"By allowing gun makers to manufacture new receivers, ATF has been allowing the manufacture of new assault weapons, in contravention of the statute," the Brady Campaign said in a statement Thursday.

There are two ways I can approach this: A full blown, curse laden rant, or try to calm myself. I'll just give a quick taste of my rant mode: I hope the filers of this lawsuit all fall into a deep ditch. I can't say what I really feel. It might repel some of you and I'm unclear on how far I can express my supposed First Amendment rights here on Alphecca.

Okay, we all know that the phony "assault weapons ban" was promulgated on cosmetics. It had nothing to do with the way the firearm operated because if it did, since the firearms on the "banned" list are simple semi-automatics that fire one round for each single press of the trigger -- all guns would have been banned. So in my opinion the Brady Bunch and the Couple of Moms are liars and distorters trying to find an "end around" to force their anti-American, anti-Bill of Rights agenda on the people of this great nation.

Much more intelligent bloggers than myself will pick this apart, as will the courts. Let me just say that these fascist leftists will never prevail. You know how I know? Because the bill (the clean bill) to protect gun manufacturers from such frivolous litigation had 75 supporters in the Senate and it would have passed if the anti-American, anti-Bill of Rights liberals hadn't tried to append all sorts of nonsense amendments to the bill. And when they did, the majority decided to "puke" the bill.

This suit will be thrown out by the courts, or it will lose. Simple as that. In my First Amendment opinion, these anti-gun groups are reduced to grasping at straws to feebly attempt to advance their pathetic, anti-American ideals.

I'm too pissed-off to write about this without invoking silly death wishes or other nonsense so I'll just end this here. You all, much more rational bloggers: Send me links to your posts about this and I'll list them here.

---

Update 3/19: Greg from the Hobbesian Conservative tells me to take heart, and since he has a cool girlfriend with a clearer head than me, explains why. I'm feeling much better now.

For those who don't know, I'm in financial straights. So are most bloggers so I won't cry the blues except to say that PayPal just informed me that since my credit-card on file is about to expire, I need to put in the new information. Since I have no active credit card anymore, I can't and so at the end of this month, my PayPal account will die. Sooooooo..., If you've been thinking of making a kind donation to Alphecca, you need to do it in the next few days so I can transfer it next week. After that, my "hit the kitties" comes down and I can't take contributions to the cause any longer. Such is life.

You folks were kind enough to donate about $340 dollars last year and I really, REALLY appreciate that. I won't be able to take such nice contributions after next week: Please consider a donation now, or at least by Sunday. That will give me a few days to claim the funds before my PayPal account is cancelled. Thanks very much! After March 30th, Alphecca will be "tip-jar" free blog. I suppose that is somewhat liberating in a way...

Via Drudge comes this asinine report from the AP:

DAYTON, Tenn. - The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution is asking lawmakers to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature.

The Rhea County commissioners approved the request 8-0 Tuesday.

Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the measure, also asked the county attorney to find a way to enact an ordinance banning homosexuals from living in the county.

"We need to keep them out of here," Fugate said.

Now, I don't often discuss "gay issues" here on Alphecca -- despite the fact that I'm gay -- because it's just not usually important to me or most of my readers. And I'm not even going to go into the part of this report about declaring that gay sex is a "crime against nature" because while I thought the Supreme Court dealt with that already, I suppose if this backwater county wants to try to craft something that bans it anyway... I think it's a stupid idea. And since it's my nature to be gay, I consider that the whole premise is false. The fact that all eight of the trilobites on the county commission went along shows just how far down the strata these fossils reside.

No, instead I'll comment on "Commissioner J.C. Fugate" (rhymes with "fuckhead") who wants to ban gays from living in the county...? I presume that this is a VERY remote and conservative area of Tennessee. No doubt the average resident of this county, after drinking a lot and beating their wives and molesting their daughters, says a prayer of thanks to God and goes to sleep on self-righteous sheets at night. How exactly would they word an ordinance or law that would ban a homosexual from living in Diarhea County?

Would real estate agents be required to inquire into the sex-lives of home buyers? Perhaps the local election board would have to administer sexually oriented polygraph tests to anyone registering to vote. Or maybe if two guys or gals applied for a mortgage together, that would be the basis for instant refusal by banks within this 18th century bastion of a population that celebrates inbreeding to win the county fair prize for the i.q. farthest below the average possum.

Although fire and the wheel haven't yet reached this paleolithic area of the state, I would hope that the unicellular inhabitants would realize that short of actually committing a crime, they can't actually prohibit a category of folks from moving, relocating, or living in their stagnant pond.

I suppose that having lost the battles to keep Blacks, Jews, and Hispanics off of their barron lands -- along with anyone else who doesn't have 6 or 7 fingers on each hand and webbed-feet in solidarity with the local population -- they will now try to eradicate their night-time fantasies to eliminate any (incorrectly perceived) competition with their evening rape of their church alter-boys.

They're serious. And that's scary!

---

Update 3/18: My blogson Eric picks up the baton. Also you should read his post on how the ACLU is crushing dissent and -- as usual -- supporting the mutant muslems (you know; the folks who follow the religion of peace) who support murder. I'm getting a little tired of "qualifying" that statement. I'm getting a little bored with trying to seperate the Islamic extremists from the rest, since there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference.

This Winter has sucked. Ultra-cold yet not much snow (not enough to refill the wells for this Summer) but now as we're all sick of Winter, starting tonight we are expecting a foot of snow tonight. I'm tired of Winter. Send your sympathies to me. I feel the need...

That's always been a total mystery to me. At many demonstrations by the misguided left, for various causes such as support for murderous Palistinians, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and on and on -- there's almost always a contingent of "Queers for Palistine" et cetera.

This astounds me because most Islamic based nations have draconian laws that say, "if you're gay, you die or worse." Even in a supposedly moderate country such as Egypt, we saw the arrests and "trials" of over a hundred gay people for various infractions of the Koran; actually for just partying with each other. And yet, organizations such as the Human Rights Watch (part of the Human Rights Campaign) suck-up to terrorists and claim that any measures a country might take to defend itself are somehow "violations of human rights." Check out that link for a moment to see the endless "position papers" against Israel and for Palistinian rights.

Apparently, building a barrier to help keep out suicide bombers is a "human rights violation" but blowing up (that is, murdering) innocent civilians isn't! Just one reason why hell will freeze over before I ever make a donation to such a twisted organization.

Back to my original point. Palistinians kill homosexuals. Saudi Arabians do. Iranians do. Iraqians did. Afghanistan under the Taliban did. Further, these nations support, grow, encourage terrorists who would destroy America. America, a nation where gays don't have all rights but certainly fair far better than most (and at least there exists a mechanism to try to secure those rights,) is somehow evil for trying to destroy the Islamic terrorists and protect our shores. The same Islamics who would kill gays in a NY second. Yet, many leftist gays throw their support behind the Islamics, the terrorists.

Hmmm... This is becoming rather rambling, sorry about that, I'm fuzzy this morning.

Anyway, the ineffectual United Nations wants to grant health benefits and such to UN employees -- in nations that would allow such rights. Naturally, the Islamic nations are not amused. Here's a quote:

Islamic nations, led by Iran, objected on Monday to a new U.N. policy that would grant health and other benefits to gay partners and unmarried heterosexual couples if their home country allows it.

In a bulletin issued in January, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan took the cautious step toward recognizing nontraditional families, which U.N. officials said would affect only a small number of staff.

Iran, representing the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Conference, told a General Assembly finance committee that such a decision needed to be approved by the 191-member assembly and requested Annan submit "in writing a clarification and explanation."

Aside from the fact that the policy would only apply in nations that permit it, the Islamics are now going to take the tact that "it's too expensive." I guess I'm just confused as to why so many leftist gays continue to support and defend ("it's their culture and all cultures are valid and equal") Islamic nations.

By the way, the Vatican joined the OIC in protesting the new policy. And the U.S. did not comment during the U.N. debate -- I wonder what Bush will do...

So my point is that if some gays don't like US policies; fine. That's understandable and it's the American way. But that shouldn't automatically mean that they should unquestioningly align themselves with the enemy -- especially when the enemy hates them so much. Maybe it would just be better if they (the gays) stay out of it and concentrate on their own fight for rights. Especially since the GLBT community is NEVER going to find Iranians, Palistinians, et al joining in support of their protests here at home.

---

Update 3/19: I received an email from Mike Airhart at the Independent Gay Forum (link) correcting me by pointing out that the Human Rights Watch and the Human Rights Campaign are not affiliated with each other. So that's my error. I do note though that the link to HRW came from the HRC website so they are at least "kindred spirits." He does point out that the Independent Gay Forum has found and commented on several gay groups that have sided with the enemy. See this and this also for a round-up of articles about it. Thanks Mike.

From today's SF GATE comes this stupid editorial:

Politics aside, for national security reasons, a number of Republicans, independents and even Democrats believe it's imperative to re-elect President Bush. As potential "single issue" voters, these Americans strongly believe that post-Sept. 11, Bush has and will continue to take the fight to the terrorists. So again, I ask some of my fellow Republicans, if you believe this to be true, why endanger his re-election by supporting these obscene weapons of death?

The issue at hand (and trigger finger) is that the ban Congress imposed in 1994 that made it illegal to manufacture, transfer or possess 19 specific types of semi-automatic weapons, along with ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, will expire in September. That is, two months before voters go to the polls to decide on a new president.

Tragically, many Republicans want the ban to expire. There is no secret as to why they, and a number of Democrats, are willing to let the ban die on the vine. Their fear of the National Rifle Association, its ability to lobby and back the opponent of anyone who takes a stand against them, has galvanized them into inaction.

The writer, Douglas MacKinnon thinks the AWB will hurt Bush in the election in November. It might. But actually, voters have short memories about single issues. And most folks are (or should be) more concerned about the economy and the security of the U.S. from mutant Islamic terrorists. Something the voters of Spain have decided (protection from Muslim radicals) they don't need.

But the writer, trying to pass himself off as a Republican, thinks the average senator is beholden to the NRA. And that the average senator fears the NRA.

Well now, do these senators (and Bush) fear the AARP? The NEA? The Trial Lawyers? I don't know, but I do know that the AWB is a red-herring. It is legislation forced through by Bill Clinton in 1996 that categorized 19 guns -- guns that functioned as almost all guns do -- as somehow scary and that should be banned because they "look dangerous" and... and the only thing against these firearms was some cosmetic features. The anti-gun forces have already admitted that the whole AWB ("assault weapons ban") is based on "looks" since they concede that gun makers have made "minor alterations" to the guns to "get around" the ban.

I'll tell you what I think. In my opinion. MacKinnon is a "ringer" who claims he's a Republican. The SF Gate publishes his letter to show everyone that "SEE! Even Republicans support gun control!" To me, this is like "Jews for Jesus" or other such nonsense. It's not real. MacKinnon is not real. Not a real conservative who loves his country and supports the Bill of Rights. This might as well be a scene from The Matrix.

A rational, thinking person understands the phoniness of the position. A real person knows the true meaning of the Second Amendment and it's importance in the creation and sustenance of America. A real Republican, American... Understands that when you compromise one right, you endanger all of the rest. There really is a slippery slope and the left will not rest until it has all of us under it's Singaporean control.

Nice try, MacKinnon and SF Gate; but we see right through the ruse. Parden the foul language but really, No Fucking Surrender! A "Right" is not a privilege or a "grant." It comes from deep inside our being: The right to defend and protect ourselves and loved ones. It is one of the three basic mantras of all life on Earth: Eat, procreate, defend. Some animals have claws and fangs, and plants have poisons and thorns. Man has his wits and firearms.

Here's my message to leftist liberals and to John Kerry: Fuck off!

I just paid my six-month fee to Hosting Matters and my local ISP. Just in case some of you have gotten your tax return refunds and there's more than you expected... If you're considering a donation to Alphecca, this would be a really swell time to do it. Only one kind soul has hit "the kitties" on the sidebar in many weeks. And thanks!

By Golly, it must be that time of the week again. Time to look at some of the stories and editorials linked to by Yahoo! on their Gun Control Debate Page. And this after I watched the DVDs (again) of The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded. Talk about being in the mood. Here's a "Sharp Dressed Man":

Incidentally, via Les Jones and his Weekly Gun Links, I discovered Guns of the Matrix. Pretty cool. Anyway... Most of the new links again dealt with the defeat of the bill to protect gun makers from baseless lawsuits.

From one of the most unusual sources linked on the page -- Rolling Stone Magazine comes up with this editorial:

Bull's eye shooter supply, a great barn of a building in Tacoma, Washington, sells everything from air rifles to the Bushmaster XM15 semiautomatic rifle, a kind of high-class M-16. Upstairs, you can try a gun before you buy it at one of twelve indoor shooting lanes, where children under 12 yrs shoot free when accompanied by adult. For a building that contains enough firepower to overthrow Kim Jong Il, security is remarkably lax. "It's pretty amazing," says Richard Van Loan, a federal agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "You have guns not tethered down, no security cameras, nobody checking the doors." According to the ATF, at least 238 guns have "disappeared" from the store -- and fifty-two have been used in crimes. The snipers who terrorized the nation's capital in 2002, for instance, managed to obtain the Bushmaster they used to kill ten people from Bull's Eye without bothering to pay for it.

Relatives of nine of the victims sued Bull's Eye and Bushmaster Firearms, claiming their negligence led to the killings. Last June, a judge agreed to let the lawsuit go forward, citing Bull's Eye's "allegedly reckless or incompetent conduct in distributing firearms." But if the National Rifle Association and President Bush have their way, the case will never go before a jury. The NRA and the White House are pushing a bill that prohibits lawsuits against the makers and sellers of firearms that end up killing or maiming people. Supporters call it the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Opponents call it the Bull's Eye Protection Act.

(The magazine doesn't identify the story as an editorial but that's what it is.) I was wondering how much mis-information could be packed into one piece and now I know. The recently defeated bill would NOT have protected the Bull's Eye gun store from lawsuits claiming negligence. The bill had specific protections to permit such actions. The Bull's Eye had a history of "losing guns" and they could not account for the weapon used by the two mutants in the D.C. Sniper case. The lawsuit by the relatives of the victims could easily proceed. So the writer of this screed, Dan Baum, is flat-out wrong or worse, is trying to deceive his readership to push an agenda.

What the bill does do is protect a firm such as Bushmaster from being sued if one of their products -- properly functioning, ie not defective -- winds up being used criminally. The same way you would not sue Ford because of the actions of a drunk driver, so the bill was really designed to stem the flow of frivolous lawsuits against gun makers and distributors. And most of those lawsuits have originated from greedy cities and organizations.

The editorial goes on:

The bill set off the biggest congressional gunfight in years. The House passed the measure by a wide margin, and the Senate seemed all but certain to follow suit. Then, on March 2nd, gun-control advocates managed to tack two amendments onto the bill that are anathema to the NRA: one extending the ban on assault weapons and another requiring background checks on customers at gun shows. "It's the NRA's dream bill -- with some of its worst nightmares attached," said Peter Hamm, communications director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Again, the tired mantra of the phony "assault weapons" ban and the innuendo that background checks are never conducted at gun shows. Licensed FFL dealers have to conduct NICS checks. The problem -- if you want to call it that -- is with unlicensed participants or sales in the parking lot. I've addressed that ad nauseam and won't do it again now.

Rolling Stone really ought to stick to glorifying drug-using misogynist rappers or doing puff-pieces on the likes of John Kerry.

Speaking of nausea, Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley had an editorial in the Chicago Tribune blathering about the same thing and calling on state and federal legislaters to give "reasonable" gun laws a chance. Of course, his definition of "reasonable" is to outlaw firearm possession in Chicago totally. Hmmm, and yet, Chicago has the highest murder rate in the nation. Hasn't worked, huh, Dick? Here's a quote:

So what can we learn from the Senate's gun vote? First of all, a majority of senators really aren't thrilled with the idea of suing the gun industry to force it to take responsibility for the way its products are marketed.

I agree that lawsuits should be the last recourse. The City of Chicago filed suit only because we had run out of ways to get the gun industry to clean itself up. We sent Chicago police officers masquerading as gang members, soldiers of fortune and straw purchasers (those who buy guns for criminals) into suburban gun stores. They were sold guns, with few or no questions asked, even when they made it clear the guns would be used for illegal activities.

Any other industry would crack down on dealers who abused its product in that manner. But the gun industry has rejected every request to police itself.

The City of Chicago filed suit after being approached by trial lawyers who saw gold in them thar hills. So spare us the altruistic nonsense. Most gun manufacturers DO crack down on shady dealers -- if those dealers are brought to their attention. But going back to the Bull's Eye for a moment, the ATF had found numerous violations over the years and never took action to close the shop, much less notify any gun makers of problems with the shop. Has Daley notified any gun makers of problems with the shops he mentions? I didn't think so.

As for undercover cops buying weapons -- I presume they passed the Instant Check which means they DID have to fill out the federal questionnaire -- if they did (and I doubt it) claim they were going to use the gun to rob or murder people and were still sold the firearm than yes, they should be shut down. But that's not the responsibility of a manufacturer, it's the job of the state.

If a restaurant is serving bad food and making people sick, it's the town or state health inspector who has to take action, not the food distributor or grower. Right?

Daley also says this:

We also filed our lawsuit out of frustration at the unwillingness of lawmakers in Springfield and Washington to pass reasonable gun regulations--with the emphasis on "reasonable."

So now he's blaming his own state legislature! And just to make sure they get the message, he'll sue the... gun makers? Hey Dick, if you don't like the laws of your state then try getting some of your like-minded cronies elected. But obviously the people have spoken and they don't agree with you. Too bad, but that's still not a reason to sue the manufacturers. That's why the Senate bill was so important. To stop hacks like you!

At this point in my report you could probably use some good news. Regarding the recently upheld concealed carry legislation in Missouri, the South County Mail (Ozarks) has this fine story by the editor:

With the Missouri State Supreme Court upholding the conceal and carry law, local law enforcement personnel say the crime rate may drop as a result.

"In the 31 states that have conceal and carry laws, all the crime statistics I"ve seen would indicate that the crime rate has gone down as a result," said Webster County Sheriff Ron Worsham.

"I've always supported the law. I've covered too many homicides where I've had to dig up victims of a crime, especially young women. I firmly believe that if they had a way to defend themselves, many of them would be alive today. I ve always encouraged my daughter to carry a loaded weapon in her car in plain sight," Worsham said.

My kind of guy. Now let's try a fantasy here: Picture the Chicago Tribune or the Washington Post et al printing a quote like that! Yah, too fantastic to imagine...

Back to reality, and this Washington Post column:

Last year, 1,982 guns were confiscated in the District -- where a ban on handgun ownership has been in place since 1979 -- and turned over to the ATF for tracing. Moreover, 77 percent of the city's 243 homicides last year were gun-related.

Washington D.C. has the second highest murder rate in the country. And if handguns have been banned for 25 years then I guess those 1,982 guns came from --wait for it-- criminals! You know, those folks who don't obey laws, much less gun laws. Which again, makes you ask if maybe the law abiding ought to be able to defend themselves?

This column was about a 14-year-old caught with firearms. Folks, criminals come in all sizes and ages. It's still not a reason to deny citizens their Second Amendment rights. Amazing, the contrast between the last two stories. This one also quotes a D.C. cop:

"We weren't into guns when I was growing up, unless we were playing cowboys with cap guns," Young said. "Firearms were off limits. Kids my age just didn't see guns. But this younger generation is different. Every day that I'm on the street, I expect to face juveniles who are armed. And I know what a 14-year-old is capable of."

Well, I don't know where you grew up but even as a twelve-year-old going to a summer camp in New Jersey, we had riflery everyday. And archery too. Talk about a sheltered life...

Here's some stuff from the always valuable Keep and Bear Arms.

A wide ranging story about the demise of the "assault weapons" ban in September came from the Star-Tribune (MN):

There's widespread agreement that the ban is flawed, but supporters of the ban argue that it should be strengthened, not dropped. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., voted to end the ban last week. In an interview Thursday, he called it "more dressing than substance."

Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., voted to uphold the ban, saying the guns' only purpose is "to slaughter indiscriminately human beings."

Coleman's vote represented a change from his position as a candidate two years ago, when he said he would support the ban as long as it did not extend to semi-automatic hunting guns.

Coleman said the difference is studies questioning the ban's effectiveness. "All the studies come to the same conclusion -- little or no impact," he said.

So far so good, right? Reasonably balanced. But wait, further down comes this:

Coleman, one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the NRA in 2002, supported the group's positions. He voted against extending the ban, against background checks and against the overall bill.

Coleman received $9,900 from the NRA during his Senate campaign, and the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action spent another $7,558 on a direct mailing in support of Coleman.

There it is; the bias. Linking Coleman's votes to contributions from the NRA. As if his votes were bought. As if no other lobbying organizations (gosh, the NEA, AARP, the American Trial Lawyers Association, Hollywood, et cetera come to mind) ever make donations to a senate campaign.

Speaking of which, the article then veers into presidential politics by mentioning the senator who has received more special interest money than any other senator over the past 20 years:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said that Americans have "no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America." He criticized President Bush for not doing enough to promote an extension of the ban.

Funny thing, media bias.

Back to Missouri where St. Louis Today reports:

Robbers pointed a gun at Bryan Rutherford and demanded that he hand over valuables from his pickup Tuesday evening in Lemay.

Rutherford didn't pull out cash or jewelry. He pulled out a .22-caliber pistol hidden in his vehicle and opened fire in what authorities believe is the first instance of self-defense with a concealed firearm since the Missouri Legislature loosened the state's gun laws.

The man holding what turned out to be a BB gun on Rutherford was hit several times in the torso before he and two accomplices fled. Three suspects were later captured and charged.

The precise status of the concealed carry law at the time Rutherford fired is cloudy. But in any event, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said Thursday that Rutherford would not be charged.

Oh, I'll bet there are other instances of self-defense that haven't been reported because the mutants backed off. As John R. Lott, Jr. has shown, law abiding citizens use firearms defensively a staggeringly large number of times every year. The media just doesn't report it much. By the way, on his own blog he reports on how the anti-gun Violence Policy Center admits in an interview with National Public Radio (the radio arm of the Democratic Party) that if the "assault weapons" ban is allowed to expire, it won't make "one whit of difference" in the crime rates.

Turning to what some Pro-2A bloggers are up to:

James at Hell In a Handbasket has some advice on economical protection.

Geek With a 45. poses the question of when is a "gun crime" not a gun crime?

My friend Nicki (of KABA) has been filling in over at Publicola. I don't know how I missed this one last week but she's reporting that Australia -- having banned guns -- is now going after swords! Yeah, what slippery slope?

Say Uncle reports on more nonsense from the Violence Policy Center.

Bitter Bitch reports on an initiation gone bad. I can think of so many safe gun handling rules that were broken.

Speaking of waiting periods, which I wasn't, damnum absque injuria just went through an excruciating one in -- where else -- California. It just reminds me once again of why I live in Vermont...

Okay, it's midnight and four hours is enough. Thanks to all of you for stopping by. See you soon.

Here's some links that aren't political or such. Just pleasant light reading for a lazy Sunday. It's supposed to zoom-up to 40 degrees today which is a heatwave in this part of the country.

It seems like the theme here at Alphecca over the last several days has been about the recently married or betrothed. My friend Lana and her husband (notice that it's only the actual blogger that I name; any spouse is just a nameless after-thought...) relates their pile of paperwork for a home improvement loan. Okay, something slightly political: Lana also writes about Frenchie's (that's John Kerry's) tax proposal. Kerry, of course, wants to tax "the rich" folks who provide jobs and industry for those of us on the lower rungs. I just got back (two days ago) my federal tax refund. It was twice the size of what I used to get. I kinda' like these tax cuts and I really don't feel like turning it over to a Kerry tax increase. Because that's what it is -- a repeal of past tax-cuts is a tax increase. Pretty simple to Lana and me.

---

Sean at Everything I Know is Wrong has a round-up of Kerryisms. I love it. John Kerry is the shabbiest candidate ever and yet the liberal elite would elect him and allow our great country to be destroyed by mutant Islamics. God help us if Kerry becomes president.

Okay, so I will link political stuff...

---

Mike at Raising Sand (who is obviously, like me, an Isaac Asimov fan) writes about the loss of jobs due to robotics. He makes some good points and also rebuts those of long ago (1960's-1970's) who (many of them sci-fi writers) predicted a future of leisure for all of us as robots and automatons free'd us from manual toil. That's the fulcrum: If robots are doing everything for us, how do we earn a living to afford them. Interesting post.

---

Bill and Kent is one of those rarities, a liberal blog that links to Alphecca. I like them. I disagree with much that they write about (but I agree with them about gay marriage.) Anyway I appreciate that they are open-minded enough to not exclude a link to Alphecca the way so many on the left-side of the aisle do.

I agree with them (also) about the Hubble Telescope in that we're all awed by the images and knowledge it provides and the ridiculous discussions to not maintain it any more. This is a wonderous scientific instrument that is helping to push our astronomical frontiers farther and further out. Yes, the Shuttle program is on hiatus for now but I also think the US is showing some paranoia about the shuttles by scapping the whole program because of one tragic accident. After all, we did have dozens of safe missions. Certainly we could do one more or ask for help from others to send a mission there to replace the batteries. Anyway...

I have a bone-to-pick about (in the same post) their take on smoking in restaurants and bars. Most states show their "Singapore" or "Saudi-Arabian" leanings by wanting to regulate every facet of our lives and not leave choices up to the general public. No chewing gum. Women not allowed to do anything. Bill and Kent don't like smoking. Their home state of Connecticut bans smoking in all bars and restaurants. Most states do that. Now, some lawmakers there are considering exceptions.

I say: Leave it up to the free-market! If a restaurant owner wants to ban smoking, put up a sign saying that "this is a smoke-free restaurant" and non-smokers will flock there. and if some other restauranteer wants to allow smoking, let them do so and attract their own clientele. The public would get to choose (imagine, here in America) which restaurant they want to patronize. Potential workers would also be able to decide which of the two they would like to apply to for a job. Or do you think that French restaurants should be forced to serve Italian food? That vegetarian eateries should be force to offer meat offerings? That non-kosher delis should be forced to maintain kosher standards?

On most issues, it's called freedom of choice by liberals, who then turn around and deny it to "the rest of us" about such basic decisions as to where and how we might want to dine.

And you know what? Maybe (since most people don't smoke) the non-smoking restaurants and bars will prosper and the other restaurants will eventually change and follow suit. But maybe not. But the left will not rest until they regulate every facet of our lives because they know what's good for us. *Sigh.* I say let the free-market forces decide on their own without the "Nanny-State" interfering. That is, after all, the American way of capitalism. Supposedly that is the basis for this country's economy.

---

Okay, so I am linking to the political... Middle Age Madness is offering his list of things Kerry supporters believe in. I can't find a perma-link but it's the first thing up today. I agree with most of the items.

---

Marc at Lay Lines is back. As Martha (from her cell) might say, "that's a good thing."

---

You know, I had read about Frenchie's challenge to President Bush to hold monthly debates and I wondered why Bush should even dignify such a request -- at least so early in the year -- but Kelley at Suburban Blight points out that it really would be (to repeat myself) "a good thing." Still, the challenger shouldn't call the shots.

---

GDay Mate: I'd give this a "heh!"

And by the way, he's about the geekiest blogger I know of -- besides her. Fortunately, Ozguru, like myself and this guy are all Mac users. Brilliant minds stick together...

---

Lastly, the reason I'm up blogging today is that Alphecca received it's 1/2 millionth visitor this morning. Granted, it took me 16 months to reach that number, and my blogfather receives that same number about every week... Still, I think it's pretty cool that a mumbling nut like me can draw such a crowd. And so, as I've said so often:

Thanks for stopping by!

I'll be back tomorrow with my Weekly Check on the Bias Report.

I usually don't start blogging till Monday but I'm off today and being "Mr. Excitement" I have nothing to do. Sad, really...

By the way, Rainbow cat turns 20 on April 7th. While she is certainly showing her age, she still walks and talks and likes to play and there's nothing wrong with her appetite although she is smaller then she used to be. No fangs left and stiff (arthritis?) legged, she can't jump much anymore, but she still gets around. I have two "handi-cap" (or is that "handi-cat?") ramps set up leading to my bed, and to the kitchen counter. I made them a long time ago for a previous cat with jumping problems. It's 6" wide red cedar boards with cut-up white cedar fence pickets nailed on every half-foot to provide a paw-hold.

All of the cats love to sharpen their claws on the soft wood. I made these about 18 years ago and they're still the best things in my home for elderly felines. And yes, much to the dismay of my parents, my cats are always welcome on the kitchen counter, or anywhere else for that matter. After all, it's their home -- I'm just a tenant.

As with last year on her birthday, I'll take the day off (Wednesday, April 7th) and put up photos of the celebration of a loyal and good friend who's been with me for almost half my life. Me? I'll be fifty in October. Yipes!