The little Critter and Sambo cats will go to bed hungry tonight unless you donate to Alphecca... So click the image of these starving kitties to contribute... via PayPal
Hey, it worked for National Lampoon magazine... I don't have a second home on Cape Cod. Actually, I'm broke. So please help me get the message out about freedom, patriotism, and respect for the Bill Of Rights and the importance of the Second Amendment.
Thank you very much!
Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer"
Alphecca gets noticed!
Check out these glowing
reviews I've just made up:
...I guess that wraps up another week here at Alphecca. Sorry to end it on a rant but sometimes that's just how it works out. Anyway, if you appreciate what I do here then please spread the word about me and if you can spare it, please feed the "kitties" on the left side-bar. I know that some of you don't approve of or can't figure out how a gay-guy in Vermont could be one of the biggest supporters of our great country, our Constitution, and especially our Bill of Rights. I guess I'm just "different."
As usual, I take the weekends off and will be back Monday. Thanks to all who email comments, link to me, or just visit. Thanks for stopping by and have a great weekend!
So here is Bob Johnson, a supposed Second Amendment-supporting "hunter" from Minnesota with his tired, phony op-ed in the Minneapolis - St. Paul Star Tribune proclaiming that all of us red-blooded Americans who support the Second Amendment (as it was written and intended) should lighten up and somehow embrace -- how do the Brady Bunch and other liberals put it -- "sensible gun control measures... Don't eat anything right now because, well -- here's a quote:
The unfortunate truth is that those gun owners who speak the loudest represent only one rather extreme element of the gun-owning population.
Where as what? You think you speak for us? Here's the real truth: The gun owners who speak the loudest are the ones protecting our constitutional right to bear arms. Certainly it isn't simps like you who want to be the only ones allowed to own a firearm to protect yourself.
The rest of us do not support the notion that our community will be safer with thousands more gun-toting citizens carrying concealed, loaded handguns. Nor do we believe that military-style combat weapons should be marketed to the general public.
Au Contraire! The rest of us DO think our communities will be safer if all of us exercised our 2nd Amendment right to protect ourselves from all the mutant thugs out there who would rob or kill us in the blink-of-an-eye. And what the hell does "military-style" have to do with anything? A gun is a gun is a gun. Just because some liberals like yourself try to define some guns "as such" based on their cosmetic appearances, that doesn't or shouldn't disqualify them as legitimate firearms. Our founding fathers didn't write, "...right to bear wimpy looking arms..."
Most of us do not fear reasonable regulation. We support background checks, maintenance of good records, manufacturing safety standards, and measures that make guns inaccessible to children.
Here's how I really know this guy is a fraud. YES WE DO fear all regulation because that is the first move towards confiscation. All through recorded history it is the regulations and registrations that have led to the next logical (to liberal activist dreamers like you) step of removing all weapons from the hands of the folks who need them the most. The poor people living in desperate neighborhoods with rampant crime are the exact folks who need the protections afforded by our Constitution the most. Not rich, hypocritical Hollywood types who all have concealed-carry permits issued on demand but decry the need for any of us common folks to be allowed to protect ourselves and children.
Actually though, all of us need firearms. We are all under threat of attack at any time. From criminals, from terrorists, from an oppressive government, from what ever...
We don't or shouldn't have to justify our want to own and bear firearms. It is our God given right, or if you prefer, our genetically determined right that one of our prime directives hardwired into our brains (aside from procuring food and procreating) is that we need to and must be allowed to defend ourselves. Every single animal and plant on this great Earth deserves the right to self-defense. Animals use their teeth and claws. Plants develope their own defenses. Man has developed the firearm as a tool (same as a stone-ax) to defend himself and his family. It is an immutable right programmed into us and no government can remove or nullify that drive to protect one's self.
I will conceed one point only -- that yes, someone buying a gun should be subjected to some sort of background check to make sure they don't have a criminal history. But frankly, private sales can't be made subject to that without invoking registration and I am absolutely against registration.
As for "maintenance of good records," -- what the hell does that mean?
As for "manufacturing safety standards," -- I have already shown and ranted about (and no, I won't look up all the links right now) how trying to make guns meet the "safety standards" of a child's car seat is completely not applicable. Guns are inherently not safe unless "used as directed." Smart guns and child safety guns will be useless in personal protection and will only result in getting the owner of the gun and probably his loved-ones killed by some damn mutant thug.
Lastly, you can't legislate common sense. The only one who can keep guns out of the hands of children are the gun owners themselves. I've always said (right here on Alphecca) that parents who leave unsupervised guns lying around where unsupervised children can get hold of them deserve the wrath of the law. But that really isn't something you can pass laws for and enforce unless you bust into everyones' homes every hour and inspect what's happening.
It's time for gun owners to disassociate ourselves from the extremists who argue that any attempt to sensibly regulate firearms takes us down the slippery slope toward confiscation. There is no threat to losing our right to own guns for sport.
I've used the example a couple of times here. Abortion advocates instantly react to any attempt to outlaw "partial birth abortions" because as repellent as those procedures are (forcing the birth of a viable child so you can crush the skull in the alimentary canal to kill it before the head is exposed, where then it would definitely be considered murder) -- abortion activists think that such a law is only the first step towards preventing, legislating against all abortions.
So it is that we gun owners know perfectly well that liberals will use registration and regulation as the first steps to confiscation. History has proven this again and again. Hitler's Germany is a perfect example but if you need a more recent one then look at England, Australia, and now -- Canada.
There is no threat to losing the right to own guns for sport YET but that will come. There is a very real threat to losing the right to possess firearms for personal protection. That's what the Second Amendment and every collateral writing by the founding fathers of our great country were trying to protect. It wasn't about food procurement, it was about personal defense! And that is the very thing liberals want to take away from us. If the population is defenseless then the tyranical, socially engineered society and all-controlling government that liberals want to inflict on all of us can actually come into being
Yes, yes, YES! There IS a "slippery slope toward confiscation" and Bob Johnson, the writer of this pathetic op-ed, knows it and flat-out supports it. How dare he claim that he speaks for all gun owners. How dare he claim that he has the sole deed to the thoughts of the majority of Americans who take advantage of and who respect the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. What a sick, horrible editorial. He speaks for no one -- but liberals will no doubt quote him and say, "See! Even gun owners want gun control." Wrong! What absolute bullshit. Shame on the Star Tribune for publishing this ruse.
I already link to ScrappleFace
and
Dave Barry
and
FARK
and
The Onion and now I've discovered another very funny site for you all to check out (and I've added it to the secondary blogroll -- folks I wish would link to me -- for your daily pleasure: Broken Newz. I link to sites like these because although Alphecca is mostly a serious web site dedicated (well, at least more than half the time) to defense of the Second Amendment, all of us need to laugh at the sillyness of our world sometimes. I try to interject some humor here as well. Oddly enough, many of those posts draw the most links and hits... Anyway, go visit Broken Newz. Great fun!
This might also be a good time to point out (for new visitors) that my "friends" blogroll lists all the great folks who kindly blogroll me. All of them have great blogs with different slants and I hope you all take some time to explore them because while not all of them agree with my views, all of them are interesting and all of them have their own stories to tell.
And if you have a blog or any other kind of web site, please consider listing me or linking to me. And if you do, please let me know and I will return the favor quickly. We all need each others' help to get our (certainly in my case) weird messages out to the world.
Mike Schneider is an AP writer and has written this story about Charlton Heston retiring as president of the NRA. You would think that in a "news story" Schneider would simply encapsulate Heston's achievements in that position and the reasons (his Alzheimer's disease) for leaving but instead he drags in comments from detractors that have nothing to do with "the story." Here's a perfect example:
Heston's most famous sound bite as NRA president -- when he raised a rifle above his head and said, "From my cold, dead hands" -- still burns in the memories of many gun-control advocates.
"I would have to say to Mr. Heston, 'Just ask any mother to hold her son's cold, dead body in a farewell,'" said Mary Leigh Blek, director of the Million Mom March and mother of a 21-year-old son who was fatally shot.
A typical gratuitous comment not even relating to anything other then that the author wanted to slam Heston for not towing the liberal line.
I might also point out that Yahoo exhibits a bit of bias at the end of the article by listing "related resources on the net" and listing just the NRA on the pro-side of the issue but listing both the Million-Mom-March and the Brady Bunch on the other side. Two-to-one against. Subtle -- but to me, significant.
Folks, this is what we're up against as we try to defend the Second Amendment. I've mentioned in the past how we need to write and call and support those in Congress who support our position. Might I also suggest that we all make an effort to buy newspapers that promote "our slant" on things? Buy the Boston Herald or the Washington Times instead of the Boston Globe or the Washington Post. Make them stronger, more noticed, more quote-worthy and then maybe their reporters will be the ones interviewed on TV newscasts, etc. And remember to write these papers to congratulate them when they support the Second Amendment and to admonish those who don't.
Once again I have to be brief as I have to be at work early today. I really wish I could adopt the Andrew Sullivan model and get paid to hang out at home and blog by my readers. Of course -- I'd have to come up with a couple hundred thousand more readers to try it... But enough about me. Oh wait! This is my blog! Okay, more about me...
Seriously, this post is just to report that it seems likely that Minnesota will have their "shall-issue" concealed carry legislation enacted. From the Pioneer Press, here's John Welsh:
After debating nearly six hours, the House voted 88-46 in favor of the bill, which supporters call the Citizens' Personal Protection Act.
If it becomes law, the bill would require local sheriffs to grant handgun permits to most law-abiding adults. The state estimates that the number of permit holders could grow from the current level of 12,000 to 70,000 within two years.
It's not there yet but it's nice to see the rural legislaters out-voting the urban liberals. The article also carries the individual vote record so folks can see exactly who is on "our side" and who isn't. All the bill really does is say that local cops and sheriffs who currently issue CCL can't simply decide not to issue to someone just because they don't like them or their politics. Hence "shall-issue." To me, that's a good thing.
Democratic leaders in the state of Vermont are criticizing Governor Jim Douglass for delaying hiring more staties.From the Times-Argus:
Senate Democratic leaders criticized Gov. James Douglas Wednesday for backing off a campaign promise to bolster the Vermont State Police force next year.
Officials from the Douglas administration on Wednesday proposed revisions to their budget proposal for fiscal year 2004, which begins July 1. As a way to cut costs in next yearıs budget, they said they would phase in the hiring of 10 new State Police troopers rather than hire them all at once.
Well My Ghod! Drum him out of office. Look folks, the money simply isn't there. The economy sucks and tax revenues are down. All he's doing is DELAYING the hiring. Perhaps if Democrats stopped trying to throw money at every single little entitlement or regulatory expansion they can dream up then the money would be there.
Frankly though, I'm glad. We have too many State Police in Vermont already. And they spend way too much time sitting around our highways busting motorist's chops. If they spent more time patrolling towns that don't have a police force of their own then maybe I'd allow for more. Probably not.
Anyway, I have to go to work so that's it for posting this morning. Thanks for stopping by!
This one in the Philadelphia Enquirer. It attacks the bill -- protecting gun makers and distributors from frivolous lawsuits -- passed by Congress as being "one of the worst bills in recent memory." Here's a quote:
...The bill sets such a high bar for suits that it would have a chilling effect. For example, suits by victims of the Beltway sniper against the store that sold suspect John Allen Muhammad the gun, even though he had a record, likely would not pass muster.
Scroll down to see my comments on a similar editorial posing as a news story from the N.Y. Times and to read the bill in question. But here's the thing: That is flat-out wrong. If the Bull's Eye gun shop violated the law, or even was simply negligent in not being able to account for the weapon, they CAN be sued and held liable. As well they should be. Have any of these writers actually read the bill in question? Isn't that supposed to be part of a journalist's job? To get all the facts? Apparently not, at least in the liberal press.
Jurors began weighing whether to award damages to Brandon Maxfield on Tuesday, a day after finding that Bryco Arms and others bore some liability in the accident.
The boy was shot in the jaw by a family friend who was trying to unload a .38-caliber handgun.
The jury found Bryco 10 percent liable after concluding the company manufactured a defective firearm.
To unload the weapon, a user must first unlock the trigger lock -- a dangerous and flawed system, according to the boy's attorney, Richard Ruggieri.
And:
The jury said that one-third of blame for the shooting falls on Maxfield's parents for leaving a loaded weapon in their house. Jurors also found the shooter, William Moreford, 20 percent liable.
The gun's distributors were found 30 percent liable.
The only defective thing in this case is the actions of the parents. I've always maintained that parents must be held responsible if they leave an unsupervised, loaded gun lying around the house where a child could find it. And absolutely Moreford is guilty for violating every rule of safe gun handling.
What I can't figure out is how the distributors could be liable. If the gun was distributed and sold legally, what exactly did they do wrong? I'm also not familier with this particular firearm but many guns don't even have real safety's and anyway, that shouldn't matter. Handling the gun properly, and storing it properly would have prevented this accident.
But -- of course -- Bryco Arms and the distributors have the "deep pockets" so they will have to pay... What??? You opened a container of hot coffee in a moving car and spilled it on your legs? Show me the money! (I'm surprised the auto-maker and dealer who sold the car weren't found partially liable in that case.
Just a reminder that you can find a "catalog" of every one of my gun posts (mostly defending the Second Amendment) by the link on the sidebar or here. And I've had a lot of postings since I started Alphecca last October.
Which I guess is my way of also pointing out that Alphecca is six months old. For those who are interested, I've had 35,980 visitors and 49,473 page views during that time. I suppose I could create a list of what I think were my best posts but others know better. So here are some of the most "linked-to" of my posts over the past six months:
The time just flies by... So here we are with my weekly check on the bias exhibited by Yahoo in which stories they choose to link to on their gun debate page:
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
Silly stuff first. The New York Times had an editorial article entitled "Bill to Bar Suits Against Gun Industry Stuns Crime Victims." From the *ahem* news story, here's a quote:
Mrs. Johnson has filed a lawsuit against the gun shop, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Wash., that supplied the gun, a Bushmaster rifle, to one of two men charged in the sniper attacks that killed her husband and nine others last fall. She has also sued the rifle's manufacturer. But last week the House of Representatives, at the urging of the National Rifle Association, passed a bill granting the gun industry nationwide immunity from virtually all lawsuits. The Senate is expected to take up the bill after the Easter recess.
So Mrs. Johnson is hurriedly trying to turn herself into a lobbyist, going to news conferences in the Capitol and working Senate offices to tell her story.
"When I heard that Congress is seriously considering giving gun dealers special protection from suits like mine, I figured this had to be some kind of bad dream," Mrs. Johnson said in an interview, after attending a news conference with Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey. "I'm appalled and outraged that Congress can take away my rights as an American to have my day in court."
The suit by Mrs. Johnson, which is likely to be joined by seven other victims or families of victims of the Washington-area sniper attacks, is one of many suits that would be stopped if the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law by President Bush. The bill would make gun dealers and gunmakers the only industry in the nation exempt from lawsuits.
There are so many factual errors in this story (factual errors in a N.Y. Times article? Now we're all stunned!) that I think it would do all of us good to examine the actual bill. The bill passed by the House of Representatives is H.R. 1036, titled "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" and it should be noted that it still has to make its way through the Senate (where a filibuster is likely) and then be signed by President Bush.
Here is the entire text of H.R. 1036:
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1036
AN ACT
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:
(1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.
(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.
(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.
(4) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.
(5) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.
(6) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution, by the Congress, or by the legislatures of the several states. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products for the harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.
(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.
(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.
(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.
(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.
(a) IN GENERAL- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
(b) DISMISSAL OF PENDING ACTIONS- A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be dismissed immediately by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS- The term `engaged in the business' has the meaning given that term in section 921(a)(21) of title 18, United States Code, and, as applied to a seller of ammunition, means a person who devotes, time, attention, and labor to the sale of ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of ammunition.
(2) MANUFACTURER- The term `manufacturer' means, with respect to a qualified product, a person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing the product in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a manufacturer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.
(3) PERSON- The term `person' means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental entity.
(4) QUALIFIED PRODUCT- The term `qualified product' means a firearm (as defined in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, including any antique firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(16) of such title)), or ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17) of such title), or a component part of a firearm or ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages or injunctive relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--
(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or
(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended.
(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- In subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows or should know the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to use the product, and in fact does use the product, in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others.
(6) SELLER- The term `seller' means, with respect to a qualified product--
(A) an importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of title 18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such an importer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such an importer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code;
(B) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title 18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such a dealer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a dealer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code; or
(C) a person engaged in the business of selling ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code) in interstate or foreign commerce at the wholesale or retail level, consistent with Federal, State, and local law.
(7) STATE- The term `State' includes each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States, and any political subdivision of any such place.
(8) TRADE ASSOCIATION- The term `trade association' means any association or business organization (whether or not incorporated under Federal or State law) that is not operated for profit, and 2 or more members of which are manufacturers or sellers of a qualified product.
Passed the House of Representatives April 9, 2003.
Attest:
Clerk.
It's unusual that I quote an entire bill but since it isn't that long and since there's been so much hysteria over it I thought you should all have a chance to read the actual thing. Now let's go back to the N.Y. Times story.
I have already said that if the Bull's Eye gunshop had as many violations as alleged, they should have been shut down. And if they can't account for the Bushmaster rifle that disappeared from their shop and wound up in the hands of the snipers, then yes -- they absolutely should be held liable. And this bill would do nothing to prevent Mrs. Johnson and her lawyers seeking their pot of gold damages. Section 5, paragraph 2 clearly exempts negligent dealers (or distributors or manufacturers) from the protections provided by this bill. So her statement is flat-out wrong. And the fact that the N.Y. Times writers and editors didn't bother to read the bill and realize it and point that out just shows once again why no intelligent person takes them seriously anymore.
What the bill does say is that if you manufacture a legal product and sell it legally, you cannot be held liable for the wrongful actions of a consumer. Should Ford be held liable because someone drove their Bronco while intoxicated and caused an accident? Of course not. Should the dealer who sold the Bronco be held liable? Of course not. But if the dealer did something wrong, then yes. This bill upholds that right to redress in regards to gun-sellers.
Longtime readers of the Post-Gazette editorial page know that this newspaper favors meaningful controls on the purchase of firearms. So why do we support legislation passed by the U.S. House with the support of the National Rifle Association?
Simple: Because the way to control guns is through criminal statutes and regulations with teeth, not with the hit-or-miss weapon of a tort lawsuit.
Exactly! The unsigned editorial makes its points well and you would do well to read the whole thing. This might be a good time to point out that when a rare piece like this appears in a newspaper, perhaps we all should write or email that paper showing our appreciation and support for their intelligent position.
The second was an op-ed by Dave Matheny in the MN Star Tribune in support of the concealed-carry bill before the Minnesota legislature:
There are a lot of bad guys out there carrying guns. They don't apply for carry permits, and wouldn't get them if they did. They are the ones to worry about, not the law-abiding. And no, the possession of a gun won't turn good men and women into bad guys.
Also worth reading.
Anyway, I guess that wraps up this edition of the Alphecca weekly table. Thanks for stopping by!
Thanks to Fark I found this story on Yahoo about how O.J. Simpson is getting his own "reality" TV series:
Fort Worth, Texas-based Urban America Television Network said it will distribute a 13-week series about the former football great -- who was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1995 -- to its 75 independent broadcast TV station affiliates starting in June.
The series will chronicle Simpson's daily life in Miami using footage collected over several months of filming in 2001 and 2002.
I'm sure it shows Simpson keeping his promise to find the killers of his ex-wife. He'll be searching high and low on all the greens of every golf course in Florida. I sure hope he doesn't come across a "Columbian necklace..."
Accused cop killer Omar Marti was slain by sheriff's deputies in Florida on Sunday after leading authorities on a 30-mile car chase that ended in a hail of gunfire.
He killed a Fair Lawn, N.J. police officer and wounded a Clifton, N.J. police officer:
Marti's journey to Florida apparently began shortly after he allegedly shot Collura and then ran over her with her patrol car on a church lawn Thursday night.
Collura was Mary Ann Collura. I knew her. A long time ago in a different life far away from where I am now, I sold fencing in Fair Lawn, N.J. I met her at her home to measure for fencing materials. She came to our store several times to pick up the fencing she would be installing herself. Sometimes she would stop by just to say, "hello."
She was a nice person, great sense of humor. She wasn't known as a "hot-dog" cop with a point to prove. She was always friendly and approachable. A good person and a good cop. My sympathies to her family, friends, and co-workers.
There's something about the smell of gunsmoke in the air...
It smells like Spring! And soon our club will be heading back to our make-shift range for a shoot-out (combination barbecue and making a lot of noise.) Here's a picture taken last Summer of one of our members disturbing the peace:
Or sometimes we go rough riding:
(But not at the same time!)
Most of the Winter snows are gone and mud-season is under way but soon we'll be back. That's an old fire-lane we use for shooting, up on a hill in the middle of nowhere. Thank God this Winter is finally coming to an end. I've griped enough about it but hey! It's my blog and I'll whine if I want to...
...has an editorial in the Washington Times today showing the hypocrisy of the Brady Bunch when it comes to supporting the federalist position in the high-courts. I don't really have anything intelligent (or unintelligent) to add to it so just go read it.
Thanks to Publicola (a pro gun-rights blog everyone should have on their blogroll) for getting me listed in the blog-links over at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Slowly the word gets out about the "gay, Jewish gun-nut from Vermont...."
