There are several new gun stories to yak about over at Yahoo but it's late Friday, I've blathered about gun control all week, and so I'm going to give it a rest. I'll cover them in next week's edition.

I also noticed that my time stamps were messed up yesterday and have fixed that. You have to remember that Alphecca is entirely hand-coded. No Blogger template or Movable Type software... Sorry about that. As I copied the archive link for each new post I put in the correct time but forgot to change AM to PM. My bad...

The bug that hit me the last couple days is ebbing but I'm washed out and too tired to write, and so will point you to a couple interesting blogs to check out instead.

My friends Kathy Kinsley and Momma Bear have tons of great stuff up over at On The Third Hand including this post about the Saudis finally waking up to the realities of terrorism. So give them a visit.

I also want you to visit a new friend to Alphecca, Eric, the proprietor of Classical Values, who has resumed his excellent blogging. Like myself, he's a gay guy who likes guns and has a great post (the blogSpot link wasn't working yet so just go there)[Now it is: here.] about trying to get a pro-gun float in the 1982 San Francisco Gay Pride parade. Needless to say, PC was alive and well even back then among the liberals in charge of approving floats...

Mike Silverman and his boyfriend are adopting a dog. And from what I can tell from the picture, it's an adult dog. That's something I like to see. Good luck and love to them.

Lots of good stuff (as usual) over at Planet Puck. Including a good Christian who watched Matrix Reload and wound up naked in a hotel... (Now if that doesn't get your attention...)

Of course there's always my tireless blogfather InstaPundit.

And my too cool blogsisters The Bitch Girls. And Bitter gives a mild fisking to the New York Times. Yeah, easy these days but always fun.

And don't forget my blogbrother Arthur Silber.

In fact, just go visit everyone on my "friends" links list. They all have interesting stories to tell.

So I guess that wraps up another week here at Alphecca. As usual, I take weekends off so I'll see you all back here Monday, same Bat Channel. Thanks for stopping by!

Now that I've got your attention... Thanks to my buddy Matt at It Could Be Better I now know that the lawyer who filed the Oreos Cookies suit has dropped it. Matt has some thoughts on it that I agree with. In any event, it did inspire one of my more noticed rants a few days ago.

But I've been thinking... (Rare for me, of course...) I do a lot of lawyer bashing here at Alphecca. I've tried to differentiate between all the "good" lawyers who handle wills and business things so I've always tried to describe what I consider "bad" lawyers by calling them "trial lawyers" on Alphecca. But that still isn't fair since for every lawyer filing a frivolous suit against something like Oreos Cookies (in other words Nabisco) or a gun manufacturer, there are also trial lawyers defending these companies.

So I do occasionally feel a twinge of guilt. It's not my intention to malign the entire profession, just the few bad apples who follow the path of greed by filing all sorts of what I consider frivolous suits.

Now, nobody wrote me about this but I do know (just from the comments I receive from folks who describe themselves as lawyers) that I have a lot of lawyers reading Alphecca. And, of course, my blogdaddy Glenn Reynolds is a lawyer. So to clear my consciousness I want to apologize.

But here's the thing -- and let me throw this out to all the lawyers who do read Alphecca -- how should I refer to those lawyers who advertise incessantly on TV, who out of sheer greed convince cities to sue gun makers, or Nabisco, or who round-up victims of terrorism to sue everyone under the sun in order to make money? How do YOU refer to them? How would you like ME to refer to them? Keeping in mind that when I'm in a rant I need something, a phrase that quickly flows off the tongue, not some clunky disclaimer.

So I'm sorry for insulting all of you. Tell me how I can just insult the bad few... Email your comments and suggestions to me at comments -at- alphecca dot com. A clickable email link is on top of the left sidebar. I'll print all comments here at the end of this post. I'll let YOU decide on the best insult for the worst of your profession. Am I magnanimous or what?

...This stomach bug has worn me down so I'm going to pop another Imodium and go to bed. More of my rantings tomorrow night. And I do realize that once again -- this week -- I've mostly concentrated on gun stuff. I really do try to limit it to about half the postings, with other -- lighter stuff or political stuff -- making up the balance. I'll try to post some other topics tomorrow night when I return.

By the way (since I'm promoting myself right now...) Andrew Sullivan received 80 thousand dollars in donations in one single week. And he's anti-gun. Yes, yes, I know -- he's a much better writer then me but hey folks, I'm on your side of the right to bear arms. If you like or agree with what I've been writing here for the past seven months, please consider a contribution to the cause. I could really use it. Just scroll down to the picture of the kitties on the left sidebar and help me out... Thank you!

And as always, thanks to all of you for stopping by. Please take some time to randomly read through my archives (left sidebar) to learn more about my opinions and what I'm about. And if you like what you're reading, please spread the word...

As usual, the Minneapolis Star Tribune shows how much it is out of touch with the average Minnesotan. Oh maybe they speak for the leftist liberals living in Minneapolis-St. Paul, but for the rest of the state (and Minnesota is a big state) they don't represent anyone. So yesterday they published two seperate editorials decrying the new, more liberal concealed-carry bill signed into law by Governor Tim Pawlenty. First, state representative Nora Slawic writes this drivel:

The buzz at the grocery store, the health club and the restaurants in my suburban area is how in less than one month it will be much easier for thousands of Minnesotans to carry a concealed handgun. Parents, business owners, city and county elected officials and neighbors have asked me time and time again over the past few weeks why do we need a law to have more guns in Minnesota? My answer is that we don't need this law, and that's why I have authored a bill to repeal it.

Really, her constituents have nothing on their minds except that instead of trying to convince corrupt sheriffs that they should have a carry permit, now every law-abiding citizen is entitled to one. And Nora (middle name Asshole) Slawic will introduce a bill going against the wishes of the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA AND THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR to repeal it. She worries that people will misplace their guns the way folks misplace their cell-phones. Of course, most people don't hold guns up to their ears every five minutes or drive around chatting into guns.

She also worries that women who carry their concealed guns in their purses also ask their kids to retrieve things (Valium?) from those same purses and will discover those firearms.

Meanwhile, (in my opinion) crappy Sci-Fi writer Eleanor Arnason pens this screed in the same issue:

I don't believe the neighbors intended to kill anyone. They were simply expressing dislike of the guy next door. In Detroit, such sentiment was expressed with guns. They had them at hand -- so they shot up the house.

She goes on to say that Minnesota will become like Detroit. Like Rep. Slawic, Arnason sees Minnesota becoming "Dodge City." How many times have we all heard that? And every single time, with supporting testimony from local law enforcement, we've seen that it hasn't. Nowhere. Anywhere.

And here's the real point of this post. If the Minneapolis Star Tribune had a single shred of editorial integrity, they would have found at least ONE op-ed from the other (our) side to counter-balance their editorial page. But they didn't. So [IMO] the Minneapolis Star Tribune is a partisan, garbage-can liner RAG not worthy of anyone's 50 cents. The publisher and editor should fall into a ditch. Stop buying this crappy paper. Stop patronizing the advertisers. Until the Star Tribune begins acting like a responsible, OBJECTIVE news source, stop feeding them money. Write to them. Boycott them. Force them to represent ALL of Minnesotans. Make your voice heard!

From Tom Hays, here's the story:

In a victory for the gun industry, a jury found Wednesday that 45 handgun manufacturers and distributors were not responsible for fueling violence in minority communities through their marketing practices.

The jury deliberated for five days before reaching its verdict in a closely watched case that now goes to the judge for a final decision. The panel was unable to reach a verdict regarding 23 other defendants in the case.

Of course this is good news. In a courtroom picked for it's hostility to guns, a jury finds that yes, YES,

YES,

the gun doesn't shoot itself, the gun makers don't leave boxes of them lying around, that yes, it really is the mutant criminal who determines how a gun will be used.

I don't know why liberal Democrats have such a hard time understanding this: We all admit that guns are dangerous. We know that. That is their specific intended purpose. If that were neutralized by legislation they would become useless. But the point is that if a specific "consumer product" performs as advertised, then how can you possibly blame the maker because some mutant thug criminal uses that product in an anti-social (to say the least) way? Yesterday, a jury from a "tough-sell" market agreed.

Now before you all put bottles of poppers under your noses, keep in mind that the jury was only in an "advisory" capacity. The [in my opinion] notoriously activist judge, Jack Weinstein [in my opinion -- hereafter shortened to "IMO"] hates guns and has [IMO] never ruled in favor of them. If he was [IMO] somehow honest and would [IMO] somehow adhere to his job, he would accept the consul of the jury and dismiss the case. But he [IMO] has never shown himself capable of [IMO] impartial judgement in the past so until he actually rules on this case, it's still up-in-the-air.

See how [IMO] freedom of speech works? It's good news but please temper it with the knowledge that Weinstein still has to accept the jury's findings. But at least this gives the lawyers on our side a reason to appeal if he doesn't. And the NAACP loses. If only they would take the cue from Roy Innes and realize that [IMO] guns can also empower and protect those most at risk.

Hey, I can spread a little cheer around here occasionally! Here's Jim VandeHei in the Washington Post:

The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons, a key leader said yesterday, dealing a significant blow to the campaign to clamp down on gun sales nationwide.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said most House members are willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, he told reporters.

His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "We have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote.

As majority leader, DeLay decides which bills are voted on in the House. Because the 1994 assault weapons ban expires next year, the House and Senate must pass legislation to renew it by Sept. 13, 2004...

Of course, this has liberal Democrats' buns in an uproar... From AFP:

"Today we are sending a letter to the president challenging him to follow through on his promise that he made in the campaign to get the assault weapons ban done," said Senator Chuck Schumer.

The New York senator alleged that the president has voiced support for the bill, knowing that Republicans who control the House of Representatives would never allow the measure to reach the floor -- thereby ensuring that it never reaches his desk for a signature.

"What's disconcerting here is the fundamental dishonesty," Schumer said.

And he should know. (See post below.) Look, I have no idea why Bush claimed he would support the extension of the "assault weapons" ban. Maybe he thinks it's smart politically. Maybe Schumer is right for a change. I'm not going to dwell on it all here. Just the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Here's the important point. "Gun-grabbers" want all of our guns. Oh they claim they just want to get "military style" weapons off the streets but here is how I can prove their arguments are phony.

The "assault weapons" ban is a fraud. It's based on silly things such as what kind of grip the gun has, or how many rounds does the magazine hold. Or does it have a "folding stock." When you get right down to it, most of it has to do with cosmetics.

During my brief stay on Earth I have owned quite a lot of firearms. And sold a lot. But in my actual possession at any one time I usually only have a few. At this moment I have four handguns and 5 rifles. Long-guns are my true love. That's what I grew up with. Anyway... Hardly makes me a "gun nut" by most peoples' standards. So I'm limited in what I can show for examples, but I'll plow blindly ahead with this post because --after all-- it's my blog.

The "assault weapons" ban dealt with certain specific guns, but subsequent legislation in two states (California was, naturally, one of them) made my Marlin Camp Carbine (9mm) a banned "assault weapon." I bought this gun used -- but unfired -- at a gunshop. Here in Vermont (thank God) we don't have to worry about such nonsense as licenses and permits and restrictions.

But California considers this a gun with high-capacity magazines that is easily modified for evil deeds such as mowing down people. Yes -- you could (with two screws) bolt on some Rambo-ish stocks. But really, it's just a simple semi-automatic rifle that fires cheap ammo and isn't good for much besides plinking, self-defense of your home, and small-game hunting. By the way, if House Democrats had their way, this gun would join the list of banned "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clintonian bill. Fortunately, that HR bill stands almost no chance of passage. Anyway, here's a pic.:



Pretty innocuous, huh? I did include (in the photo) the original 12-round clip, a couple 14 round S&W 59 clips. And a few 30-round magazines. But when you get right down to it, it's still just a simple "fun-gun." As you can see, my cats like it.

Now, the only gun in my collection that could be considered "wimpy and worthless" is a Baretta Tomcat I picked up a couple years ago. A very small .32 Cal. handgun. I'm not sure why I bought it (one of those impulse items like in the super-market) but it's not worth selling so it just seems to "hang 'round."



It's Rainbow's favorite. Anyway, aside from the magazine capacity, both guns are semi-automatics. Both guns function the same. Is there ANY REASON to suppose that once the liberals ban my Marlin, that they won't eventually say, "you know, any handgun that functions like the other banned guns should also be banned?" That slippery slope.

See, that's the thing. If they are going to ban certain guns based on nothing more than cosmetics, then sure as the sun rises, they will get around to all guns. That's what they don't want you to know. Start with a small list and keep adding to it. That's what happened in England and Australia and now in Canada. A snowball rolling down hill keeps getting larger and larger.

That's why the "assault weapons" ban bill is nothing but hypocrisy. And that's how we all know that the ultimate aim of these liberals is to ban all guns. Because when you get right down to it, they all work the same. The mechanics might be different but the function is identical and once they've got their foot in the door, there's no keeping them out.

This is why I'm so glad the silly bill will die a quiet death. Oh, some Democrats will shout around about it, but in the end, it's doomed. Good-riddance.

Oh, okay... since I'm in a picture-posty mood I'll show you a couple of my other handguns that do mean business if you try to jump something other than my bones...



That's my .40 cal. Glock 22. Photographed on my lovely Martha Stewart blanket/slip-covered couch. I also have a 29 round magazine for it that I bought (for *gasp* $129 bucks from Cheaper-Than-Dirt.) Next to it is my bedside baby, a Smith & Wesson model #65 .357 cal. revolver. I bought it used -- the dealer told me it was an old Florida police gun. Usually though, in the house, I just keep it loaded with .38 because if I'm surprised at night (for some remote reason) I don't want to blow my ear-drums too much defending myself... And replacing the aluminum siding is expensive... Besides, at close range, .38 will do just fine and the recoil is a lot less which really counts when you're half-awake...

All right. I've prattled on long enough with this post so I'm going to upload it...

Sen. Chucky Schumer and most other Democrats are opposed to the bill granting immunity from lawsuits (for gun manufacturers) for the misuse of firearms by criminals. But since they see which way the wind is blowing, they're going to try to sneak some... oh, what's that word liberals always use... got it!... "sensible" gun control measures into the bill. From Todd Zwillich writing for Reuters:

Senators opposed to a congressional measure granting gun manufacturers and dealers immunity from some civil liability lawsuits said Tuesday that they would try to use the coming debate on the bill to strengthen gun control laws in other areas.

The bill, strongly favored by the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun rights groups, is expected to arrive on the Senate floor for a vote within the next few weeks.

Incidentally, the article was listed under "Reuters--Health." I just thought I'd point that out...

Naturally they're going to try to close the gun show "loop hole" again and mandate built-in trigger-locks on all handguns. Blah Blah Blah. Hopefully, supporters of the bill will be on their guard against these sneak attacks. You know, considering the current climate here in the U.S. about gun control -- that is, not needing anymore then the current 20 thousand laws already on the books -- and considering the issue has already cost liberal Democrats quite a few seats in Congress, not to mention the 2000 presidential election, I have to wonder why they keep hammering away at the issue. But notice it is mostly just the fascist lefties from N.Y. and California doing this and trying to create a "Cliff Notes" version of the Second Amendment.

Stay on the alert folks.

...home sick today. I need to hang out by the bathroom. Fortunately, my computer is located only a few steps away. There's been a lot of action on gun rights the past 24 hours so check back here later today for my sparkling commentary...

My blogfather, InstaPundit, hits the nail on the head with a post about fake-phony-fraud Sen. Charles Schumer having his own personal armed bodyguard. But none of us little people should be allowed to protect ourselves. O'Donnell did the same thing, railing against guns while having an armed guard accompying her daughter to school.

I've told you folks before but the one thing in this world that drives me crazy is hypocrisy. I don't care where someone stands on an issue -- I can respect opinions other than my demented own. But once I discover a person is a hypocrite I lose all respect for them and tune them out. Do as you say. No, I'll do as you do...

This is probably why I hate politicians and Hollywood stars so much.

Yes, once again it's time for the Alphecca weekly Wednesday check on the bias over at Yahoo's Gun Control Debate Page. Chart first, blather second...

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
05/14/03	11	1	9	Bush vs NRA
05/07/03	7	2	11	Heston, Cincinnati, Minnesota
Apr. Avg.	11	2	6	NAACP suits, Heston retires, Wal-mart
Mar. Avg.	11	4	5	Good news Il & CO, CA judge dismisses gun makers in suit
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

Many of the stories this week concentrated on the jury finding Bryco mostly liable for the accidental shooting of a child. I haven't and probably will continue to abstain from commenting on this verdict because I just don't know all the facts or evidence that came out at the trial.

I mean, did the gun malfunction and fire with no finger on the trigger? Or did the gun operate as the instructions said it should? Does the gun really require the safety to be off in order to unload it? (Of course, many guns don't even have safeties...) Why was the baby-sitter attempting to unload the gun while it was pointed at the child? But then should baby-sitters be expected to know safe gun-handling? Why did the parents leave the gun where the child was able to find it? And loaded at that?

It seems to me there is plenty of blame to go around in this case and I suppose the jury has wound up spreading the liability as such, although the parents seem to have gotten off lightly.

Most of the other stories concerned President Bush's promise to continue (extend) the ban on "assault weapons." If you read my bit this past Sunday, you already know how I feel. John R. Lott, Jr. echos my feelings yesterday in an op-ed in the Washington Times. He rightly points out that this ban has more to do with cosmetics and media hysteria about the perceived look or action of a gun then with the realities of them. Here's a quote:

Functionally, the banned guns are the same as other non-banned semi-automatic guns, firing the exact same bullets with the same rapidity and producing the exact same damage. Changing semi-automatic weapons into machine guns is not an easy task, as completely different firing mechanisms are used. It is easier to replace the entire gun than to re-engineer a semi-automatic gun.

Why anyone would think that such a law would reduce crime is a mystery. In theory, if so-called assault weapons are relatively more effectively used by criminals to commit crime than they are used by citizens to stop crime, banning the whole class could reduce crime. But since most guns are semi-automatic, such a ban would cover most guns. Even effectively banning a few semi-automatic guns would only change the brand of gun that criminals use.

And as I've said many times, all weapons are "assault weapons" when used for criminal purposes. Lott's piece was the only "pro-gun, not more gun control" article this week. Thank God those of us who support the Second Amendment still have the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal on our side. And that -- unfortunately -- is about it. I hope readers will point out other newspapers defending our Rights to me if they come across them.

One paper, The Boston Herald, surprised me with this editorial supporting the extension of the assault weapons ban. I had always assumed they were the conservative voice of Massachusetts. But as Felix Unger used to say... Anyway, I guess that being conservative in Massachusetts is an oxymoron.

Then there was this screed from the Mercury News with the sensational title, "Blood-Bath Guns." Needless to say, they are all for continuing the ban and here's a quote from the beginning:

WITH President Bush acting as bodyguard, Democrats stand a better chance of extending the law banning certain assault weapons. The question is how the president chooses to fulfill a campaign promise he made in 2000 to support the ban. Will he get into the trenches to fight for it or will he nod politely as gun hawks like his own attorney general, John Ashcroft, take aim at the heart of the legislation?

You know, if I was a Republican strategist planning for the 2004 elections, I don't know that I would want my candidate being characterized as a bodyguard for Democrats. Bush might want to reconsider that he has really pissed-off a large, active constituency of his party. As I said a couple weeks ago, Bush needs to avoid controversial topics and stick to righting the economy. And I wish he would dump Ari Fleisher.

Then this same article goes on to say:

It shouldn't take another blood bath for Congress to renew it -- or for a president who hopes to carry California in next year's election to support it actively.

Oh please! Does anyone in this country, much less Bush's advisors, really think a modern-day Republican could ever carry the socialist state of California? That should be the least of Bush's ambitions.

The last news story I'll talk about now comes from the Chicago Tribune. It really has nothing to do with the gun-control debate per se but I'm not mystified that Yahoo linked to it. What it does have to do with is criminal control. Here's a quote:

As Mayor Richard Daley seeks to grapple with an alarming outbreak of homicides in Chicago, U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald announced Monday that a special crackdown on felons found with guns is being expanded to two crime-plagued South Side police districts.

Under the Chicago version of the federal Project Safe Neighborhoods program, an advertising campaign will warn ex-offenders that they face extended stays in federal prison if they are caught with firearms.

In fact, inspite of having some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, and not allowing any concealed carry of handguns, Chicago has one of the highest per-capita homicide rates of any city. And the murder rate is skyrocketing. Proving once again that disarming the law-abiding folks does nothing, and in fact only encourages and enables criminals. We see this equation played out all over the country.

But here's the clincher:

Under the program, an assistant U.S. attorney and an assistant Cook County state's attorney meet every two weeks to determine which gun-violation cases could yield significantly longer prison terms under federal law than state law. The federal Armed Career Criminal Law provides for a minimum 15 years behind bars for people possessing firearms who have three prior violent felony or serious drug convictions. Of those who kill with guns in Chicago, the worst 80 percent average eight prior arrests, officials said.

Eighty percent had an average of 8 prior arrests! Why the hell were they on the streets at all? And frankly, I don't think Project Safe Neighborhoods goes far enough. They do a long stretch in jail only after they've committed three violent felonies? They should be doing it after one!

See folks, this gets to the real heart of the matter. If someone planning to commit a crime knows that if caught he will get off with a slap-on-the-wrist, then what's to stop him? To quote a bumper-sticker given out by one of my favorite gun shops, "Criminal control, not gun control."

I don't care how much money it costs, this country needs more jails and those jails must be -- how shall I put this -- hell-holes. No excercise yards, no TV, no phones, no nothing. Criminals need to fear going to jail. And for a long time. Only then will crime drop. A gun is simply a tool, for good or evil. It's the mutant thugs that need to be put away, not law-abiding citizens' rights.

Okay, well, I've done enough ranting for one day (as you'll see as you scroll down...) It's almost midnight and I'm beat so I'm posting this and going to sleep. Anyway, thanks for stopping by. See you soon.

---

Update: Here are some comments I've received...

In the insane state of Illinois, you can be a double-felon, presumably both violent, like this: Carry your unloaded pistol in your car's passenger compartment. Forget to have your FOID (Firearm owner's ID) card with you.

Both "offenses" are felonies. Add being under 21 to that, and you have 3 "violent" felonies in one action.

Please note that I did not state harmful intent here. That is not required.

God forbid you drive within 1000 feet of a school while doing this. You're a 4-time loser, career criminal!

Someday, Illinois will join the ranks of free states. But not soon.

Before reporting this, you might want to check with law enforcement. Some of this is hearsay.

--John from Il.

Ah what the heck, I'll throw it out to my readers and see what they say...

About your comments on felons only getting real hard time after three felony convictions. You seem to be saying to hell with costs let's build more jails. This is where conservatives loose focus. The real reason why violent criminals are not serving the time they deserve is our prisons and jails are packed with non-violent offenders who's only crime is they engaged in individual non-harmful morality offenses. Drugs, sex, porn, prostitution etc., but most particularly drugs. The US, the poster child of freedom around the world, has the LARGEST prison population in the world (Australion World Prison Population List 4th edition 2003)? Out of 8.75 million in prison world wide 1.96 million are in the US. China that great violator of human rights and the world largest population even has less than the US (1.43 Million). The US has a rate of 686 per 100,000 in prison, the Cayman Islands has 664, Russian 638, and about 3/5s (62.5%) have rates less than 150 per 100,000 with C! hina having only 111 per 100,000.

It is time that America wake up to the fact that our "War on Drugs" is really a War on People and is hurting us, not helping. Just like prohibition the national drug policy is making drug trafficking so profitable that criminals will take just about any risk. While supporters of the drug policy like to point out that drugs (as well as prostituion) lead to violence and point to all the drug related violence in America. What they fail to do is identify the true cause and effect here. By; 1) making drugs illegal they drive drug users to the black market to shop, 2) raising the street price of drugs through interdiction they price drugs higher than many can afford and habitual users may turn to crime to raise the money, 3) placing a victimless act that many see as a personal choice as outside the law raise doubts about other laws, this erosion of confidence in the law can lead people to violate other laws as retrobution or through scorn, and 4) by placing drugs outside of co! mmon society prevent many who want help from seeking it for fear that they will be punished or cut off from their drug supply before they are ready for it.

The government spends more and more money trying to prevent drug use, yet drug use is not going down through any of their actions. The only thing they accomplish is raising the price of drugs on the street and bringing more violence to the US and the countries where the drugs originate. How likely is it that the Columbian drug lords would have grown as powerful as they did if our drug laws had not made the market so profitable?

Conservatives need to ask themselves what is more important, my liberties and budget or dictating what my fellow American is doing?

-- John from unknown

I agree that our jails are cluttered up with folks doing time for silly stuff such as drug and porno possession. And I have stated before that some drugs, such as Pot should be completely decriminalized (if for no other reason than the hypocrisy of the ban on it.)

I DO think we need more jails and while it might be costly in the short run, I believe that once the message gets out to violent felons that they will do real, long, hard time, they may decide to find another line of work. In the long run that would reduce crime and all of the expenses resulting from it.

---

Update 2: In response to a comment above...

Just a slight clarification about Illinois gun laws. While it's true that you can't carry an uncased loaded weapon in your car, it's not true that it's a felony not to have your FOID (Firearms Owner's ID Card) on your person. While only FOID card holders can "posess" guns in Illinois (with certain very limited exceptions), there's no requirement to have the card on you. It IS a good idea, though, so as to avoid hassles, and I carry mine with me all the time, whether I am transporting a gun or not. Interestingly, under Illinois law, it is permissible to "transport" a gun if: 1) you are a FOID cardholder; 2) the weapon is unloaded; and 3) the gun is enclosed in a case, shipping container, etc. Many gun owners have (correctly, in my view) interpreted the statute to permit a sort of "concealed carry", by carring their guns, unloaded, in a specially designed fanny pack. They call it, "Six seconds from safety." You can read more about it at the excellent gunssavelife.com.

--Christopher in Il.

Further update:

Further info: there's some language in the FOID statute that could be construed as requiring keeping the FOID card in your possession. It's a bit ambiguous, but in any event, violation of the FOID statute is just a misdemeanor. Violation of the UUW (Unlawful Use of Weapon) statute is a felony.

--Christopher in Il.

Here's just how stupid our entire civil courts legal system has become. From Yahoo/AP:

The lawsuit, filed last week in Marin County superior court, seeks a ban on the black and white cookies, arguing the trans fats that make the filling creamy and the cookie crisp are too dangerous for children to eat.

Stephen Joseph said he filed the suit against Nabisco, the maker of Oreos, after reading articles that said the artificial fat is hidden in most packaged food, though consumers have no way of knowing.

I would never condone violence against anyone, and I certainly would not encourage anyone to do same. But in my opinion, that is, just speculating -- fantasizing as all of us do -- on what would make this a better world, and in excercising my First Amendment rights to speak on someone who has through his own actions become a public figure, I hope Stephen Joseph trips on a clump of dirt somewhere and falls into a ditch.

This suit represents all that is wrong with our country and our world. And just as I have vigorously supported protecting gun manufacturers against frivolous suits, so too I now call on Congress to protect product makers against stupid, asshole suits. [Because there is no longer freedom of speach, I have to protect myself with all sorts of disclaimers.] In my opinion, Joseph is a total asshole undermining all personal responsiblility that people should be willing to accept.

America has (mostly due to all the liberal, leftist, trial-lawyer supported, NEA endorsed assholes who have hijacked our major political parties with their "social engineering agenda") become a total nation of babies, a nation of helpless, wimpy, ineffectual simpering cowards who have no idea of what it means to be a real man or woman anymore.

In what might seem to be a whip-lash causing change of subject -- but I promise to make my point shortly -- I was watching a special on Public Television last night about the early gold-rush to the Klondike. Actually, it was a special about the railroads that now ferry tourists to these historic sites. The program pointed out the extreme hardships those early settlers, dreamers, schemers (yes, greed was certainly an ingredient) met with on those torturous trails before the railroad had been built. Having to carry a year's food supply on their backs, sleeping in tents, being crushed by falling 100-ton rocks. Often finding nothing at the end of the trail...

But real men and women made the journey anyway, inspite of the high mortality and other risks. Because they sought a better life. Because the spirit humans used to have impelled them to explore and seek and better themselves. They didn't blame or sue someone because there weren't rest-stops every two hundred feet. (And witness the fucking lawsuit filed because our immigration department doesn't put water fountains in the middle of no-where so illegal border-crossers from Mexico can continue their ILLEGAL journey in comfort.)

The trial lawyers of this country are destroying this country. Everyone with any bump or bruise sobs in woe that life should never have risks or dangers. We should all live in padded-cells and be protected from ourselves and others. Mostly, none of us is in anyway responsible for anything that happens to us. Protect us from those deadly cookies!

How sick. How pathetic humans have become. Let me tell you something. I don't think there is a person under fifty years old who could begin to measure up to the self-sufficiency or could possibly survive what our ancestors went through daily as they explored and built this great but (thanks to greedy trial-lawyers and plaintiffs) withering nation of ours. Of course this disease isn't confined to the U.S. It now afflicts people everywhere in this nanny-state world of ours.

And now it's come to this -- We need the state to ban cookies because no child or parent of child is capable of making any sort of decision on what to put in their mouths.

On a personal note, I haven't even bothered trying to find a date these last several years because there are no real men left. Just simpering, sniveling professional victims of life. Anyone who still thinks man is evolving is a fool. We've long ago lost our drive to take life by the horns and make it our own. Evolution depends on the actions of "survival of the fittest" and there is no one fit around here anymore. The world is now filled with soft, mushy toadstools who just feed off of others. Like some pathetic turkey who drops dead because a car horn sounds on the road beside us, mankind is now at a dead-end.

One reason I admire (and truthfully lust after) Donald Rumsfeld is because he is that rarest of creatures -- a man's man. He doesn't suffer the effete fools who seem to make up the bulk of our population these days. Why can't I just meet someone like him?

Oh sure, because of good nutrition and cross-breeding, we appear taller and stronger, but we aren't. Man has reached the end of the intellectual evolution of our species. What matters now is how much money we can win in the legal lottery of victimhood. And why are so many folks so sensitive to every disease that comes along? Why are folks going into trauma over peanuts? Or perfume? Or anything?

I am not suggesting that we abandon modern medicine or embrace eugenics. But we have to face the facts. We are not -- as a species -- growing stronger or hardier. Life involves risks. Remove ALL those risks and we stop growing and speculating and evolving. We might live longer, but at what quality of life? I would rather drop-dead at sixty than live in fear of everything I eat or drink. It is sensible to take moderate precautions in life, but nothing risked results in nothing gained -- unless some fucking trial-lawyer can win you a ton of money.

If that's what our society has come down to (and apparently that is what most liberals would like) then life isn't worth living. We will never explore the stars because no agency could possibly afford the liability insurance for such a project. We will never again become strong as a species because no lawyer or politician (aren't they both one and the same) will allow us to. If we now need to ban Oreos cookies because they represent a threat to us, we will never amount to anything.

Oh, we might build faster computers or niftier medical drugs, but we will never be what we once were. A strong people who accept responsibility and who don't make or accept excuses. We will not evolve beyond where we are now. We will never cut-it in any galactic endeavor.

We desperately need tort reform right now. The only way to do that is to never again elect a lawyer to Congress. And further, we must heap scorn on anyone trying to play the "victim" game. Mostly though, we need to pretend we are still the vibrantly headstrong men and women who forged our nation two hundred years ago.

Frankly, I don't think we're up to it. I don't think there's anyone alive today who could last six months in 1776... Or who could last one week in 2000 BC... Or who could last one day in the early history of our species. Yes everyone, let's ban cookies. Fuck, how pathetic we've all become.

---

Update: I received this comment...

I don't normally write e-mails to blog writers, but your entry about the Oreo's lawsuit hit the nail on the head. I'm from across the atlantic, a little island called Jersey in the English Channel. They say Jersey is ten years behind the UK, which is ten years behind the US.. and I'm appalled by what I see creeping into Jersey and UK life. The litigation culture. The lack of personal responsibility people take is shocking.. if I walk down a street - I choose to do that. If I decide to work in a nuclear powerplant, that's my choice. I definately won't do so without doing my own research first.

Being a student at university, and working on the door of my student's union nightclub, I see this attitude plain as day when the punters are drunk.. "I have a right to this!", "You can't do that to me!". Etc, etc. There's an underlying assumption that the person - both body and mind - is somehow sacrosanct, and any impingement on their life - for however brief a time - is a blasphemy. If, for example, someone starts a fight in the club, when we break up the fight and restrain those fighting, if we have to put someone on the floor to stop them lashing out, we have to be careful that he doesn't bump his head on the floor in case it hurts him. This isn't an extreme example like Oeros, but it illustrates a point: if you're going to start fight, don't complain if you get hit. I understand the need to prevent bouncers from beating people up, but that's just silly. Lets take another example. When we conduct searches on the door, we can't ask people to take off their shoes, because, somehow, that's assault.

I apologise for the long e-mail, but you really have struck a chord with my own feelings on the subject. People should be prepared to take personal responsibility for their actions. If the stupid are going to be protected, then their stupid genes will be propagated throughout the gene pool. Let's be fair, there are some people who just shouldn't be allowed to breed.

--Charles

Charles also comments at his blog (his name is linked to it.)

My buddy Aubrey Turner has more to say on the subject as well and also links to others. Another friend of Alphecca, Diane at Everything Must Go disagrees...

All it takes is one bad HTML tag to fuck-up the display on lots of browsers. I didn't realize it for a day because Netscape ignored it but apparently it messed up versions of IE older then 5.2. Sorry about that. But how come no one let me know? [Because no one visits your sorry-ass blog? -- ed] [Hey, I'll do the self-denigrating around here... -- JS]

Ramesh Ponnuru writes today in National Review Online about the strange case of the NRA trying to interfere with a case filed by some libertarian-minded lawyers seeking to get Washington D.C.'s hand-gun ban overturned. Here's a quote about the plaintiffs and also about the pressure the NRA has brought to bear to squash the suit:

The plaintiffs are a sympathetic group. The lead plaintiff is a black woman in a high-crime neighborhood. She wants a gun to defend herself from drug dealers, who have threatened her for trying to run them out of business. Another plaintiff has a handgun by day, as he provides security for the Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center, but cannot legally have one at night to defend his own family. A third is a gay man who was able to use a gun, outside D.C., to protect himself from a gay bashing. This is the case you want before the Court, says Levy. "You don't want some crackhead bank robber wanting a sentence upgrade overturned on Second Amendment grounds." And because the gun ban is the work of the D.C. government, Levy says, a constitutional challenge to it does not raise the question of the applicability of the Bill of Rights to state governments.

Levy says that the NRA counseled the libertarians not to file their case, because they fear that it would reach the Supreme Court and that the Court, as currently constituted, would issue an unfavorable ruling. In April, however, the NRA sponsored another lawsuit against the D.C. gun ban ‹ and then filed a motion to consolidate the two cases.

And here's a quote from the lawyer for the NRA:

Halbrook, the lawyer in the NRA case, says that he too wants a Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. He says that several of the issues that Levy considers "extraneous" are related to the Second Amendment. For example: "Congress passed a law saying that D.C. could pass reasonable and usual handgun regulations. No other state bans [handguns] so it's not usual, and it's not reasonable because Congress has passed laws on three occasions declaring [gun ownership] to be an individual right. So if a court invalidates [the D.C. law on this basis], it's deferring to the congressional judgment of the Second Amendment. It's a quasi-Second Amendment claim."

I happen to agree with the logic behind both cases. Huh! -- I just noticed that Juan non-Volokh has mentioned the story this morning and knows of Halbrook and says he has a good record. Maybe so but what the NRA should have done was to offer support and resources to Levy's group and suit rather then first trying to muzzle them and then trying to force their way into the suit.

This goes to one of my main complaints with the NRA; they act as if they are the only game in town and everyone else (be it Gun Owners of America or a small band of the afore mentioned lawyers) are interlopers. Instead of pissing around as if to establish territory, the NRA should be welcoming any and all help in protecting and -- dare I say it -- restoring the Second Amendment to its original intention and strength. We're all supposed to be on the same side of this issue and we would become far stronger if we joined forces rather than becoming embroiled in internecine conflicts.

For more on this problem you would do well to check out the excellent Publicola, which covers this conflict constantly. Incidentally, Publicola's top post today covers the house version of the assault weapons ban that Democrats are trying to push. I don't think, in this current climate that it will pass -- I think that President Bush will (and that is unfortunate in itself) sign the extension of the original 1994 bill signed by creepazoid Bill Clinton. But I think you should be aware of it and Publicola lists all of the co-sponsors of the bill so you know who to throw out of office next election. Publicola doesn't have perma-links [update: yes he does] but I do recommend this blog highly as a regular read so you shouldn't need them... (heh.)

Incidentally, one of the reasons I've been following the original lawsuit is that one of the plaintiffs is gay. I have long maintained that gays ought to be the fiercest supporters and practitioners of the Second Amendment. Instead of whining about being the victim of physical gay-bashing assaults, we (I certainly do) should be embracing this RIGHT to self-defense and fighting back. To put it another way: Stop complaining and start doing something to protect yourself.

I also think that poor blacks (or whites or hispanics for that matter) relegated to living in slum neighborhoods should be arming themselves for protection against the mutant gangs and drug dealers. I know that many folks abhor having to resort to violence to protect themselves but you know what? That old adage applies: The best defense is a good offense. This is the world we live in and it is why I support Bush in his "prevent" defense policy.

Look, the cops (and God knows many of them are themselves corrupt thugs) can't be everywhere and besides, they don't prevent anything -- they respond, usually too late to intervene in anything. Eventually though, if we all start to assume some responsibility for our own fate by arming ourselves, the mutant thugs and gang-bangers and other criminals will get the message. They're in the wrong line of work and had better not pick on us.

And there's another benefit to bearing arms. I'm often reminded of the old tag-line for ads from Thunder Ranch: If you look like food you will be eaten. Exactly. And carrying a weapon with you in your day to day life or keeping one in your home gives you a sense of calm and assurance that just totally, subliminally says, "back-off. I can take care of myself and if you try to hurt me I will hurt you worse." It gives you an air of confidence. You don't have to use it [the firearm] but knowing it's there puts an aura around you that thugs notice and avoid.

I like carrying a gun. I do it everyday, everywhere. I already know what it means to be violently attacked. I don't expect that will happen again and I don't look for it but now I know I can probably (not certainly) prevent it if it does. I will never again go down without a fight. I will never again have last rights read to me unless it's really my time.

Hmph! I didn't intend this to be such a long post but I feel passionate about this subject. Concealed Carry is a part of my day-to-day life and I feel better for doing it and I recommend it for everyone for the peace of mind it brings. I recommend it to everyone, especially my gay brothers and sisters. Don't become someone elses "food."

Most animals have natural defenses such as teeth and claws. Even many plants have natural defenses such as thorns or poisons. Humans have neither. The founders of our great nation provided for that and said we have the RIGHT to bear arms. Do it. I've blathered about this before but here I go again. There are three prime directives to all life, including us -- human beings:

1) Eat.

2) Pro-create (or atleast have sex.)

3) Protect yourself (and loved ones.)

Most of us have no problem with the first two. (Well, I could use some help with number two...)

Now start observing the third one. Take your defense seriously. At the very least, protect the means -- the Second Amendment -- seriously so that you never lose the right to protect yourself or your family.

Over at my best blogger friends, The Bitch Girls, Bitter gets it. I have always eschewed pornography because when someone is totally naked in front of you, there really isn't anything sexy about it. It's when you see them "skimpingly dressed" in underware or a bathing-suit that they become erotic and sexy. Your imagination is far more creative than any photographer could ever be. So too it is in the movies where showing everything doesn't cut it but hinting at what might be about to happen is very sexy. Here's the finale quote:

I will say it again: Best Sex Scene Ever!

No sex, all sexiness.

Now if that doesn't make you want to read the whole post then check your pulse... And by the way, Bitter, I want to meet a guy like Johnny...

---

I've said this before -- Jay Manifold is another of my favorite blogs and why the hell don't you all blogroll and visit and quote him? Anyway, here's a parable post of his that shows why. From the mythical land of Qari...

---

My buddy and good friend Leigh Hanlon has done something I've done way too many times. And that's why I now stick to digital cameras. No perma-link but Leigh has a great blog so check it all out.

---

My dream date buddy over at BansheeNC has a really nice message for his mom, for Mother's Day. I feel the same way and I bet my mom does too...

Okay, I'll admit it, Barry is my dream date but I'm too old and far away... God but he is cute...

(the couple hundred gun-nuts who visit me every day just deleted me from their "bookmarks/favorites" list.) Hey folks, once in a while I should be able to dream a bit and talk about it. This is a BLOG and I don't owe you anything. Get over it... We're still on the same side about almost everything else! Or don't you ever nudge your friend about a cute woman? Well, I'm nudging those who care -- about a cute guy. One more time -- GET OVER IT. Freedom from regulation should apply to every facet of our lives! Anything else makes you a hypocrite.

---

And just in case you thought you were the only one transferring millions of dollars to your own bank account for orphaned African children... Allen Prather has the same problems. God knows I hope some real (with teeth) anti-spam bill passes through Congress. Between countless emails offering me drugs without prescriptions and dept consolidation and money transfers and (OH! The unkindest suggestion of all that my *ahem* member might not measure up to today's standards) my email-box is almost totally filled with spam and junk. There comes a point where it has to stop.

---

Quick note: My friend at Six Foot Pole ("it only sounds dirty") has moved to here. Adjust your bookmarks accordingly.

---

My buddy over at Carnifex (no perma-link but all of Carnifex is worth reading) has a post about children and personal responsibility. Something that has been lost on all of us as we've quickly become the "nation of babies" looking for trial-lawyers to make us rich because everything in life doesn't go our way... (Just in case you still didn't know where I stand on this issue...

You know, even in states where the majority of the population favor gun rights and eschew gun control -- even there the newspapers are overwhelmingly liberal and out of step. This editorial doesn't think the assault weapons ban (that Bush is planning to extend) goes far enough. From the (KY) Courier-Journal:

But we aren't thrilled. If the first nine years of the ban have proved anything, it's that the law doesn't go far enough.

Very quickly, the gun industry figured out how to get around the law by slightly modifying weapons. As this month's issue of Gun World says, assault rifles "are far from dead. Stunned momentarily, they sprang back with a vengeance and seem better than ever. Purveyors abound, producing post-ban assault rifles for civilians."

Look, it's no surprise that a newspaper editorial blathers these things. But if their quote from Gun World is accurate and in context, then the editors of Gun World are total assholes doing no one who believes in the Second Amendment any favors.

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle," or -- conversely -- all rifles are assault weapons. That is, any firearm (or for that matter, knife, baseball bat, tire-iron) can be used to assault and attack someone. The bill Clinton signed, and Bush unfortunately seems determined to extend, was really based on cosmetics of the weapon, and how many rounds its magazine held. They were outlawing an adjective rather than a noun.

Now, a supposedly pro-gun magazine decides to buy into this farce by declaring that, "yes there is such a thing as an assault weapon." Anyone subscribing to this rag should immediately cancel their subscription.

I subscribe to zero -- count 'em, none -- gun magazines because most of them just have stupid articles that teach nothing and they rave about crappy guns because the manufacturer advertises in the publication. I used to get Gun Tests magazine, which accepted no advertising, but I can't afford it these days.

Anyway, the editors of Gun World are first class schmucks. And they were the ones who provided the ammunition for this stupid editorial.

Apparently, Hollywood liberals can say anything they want and criticize anyone they want. Fine, that's what the First Amendment is all about. But of course, God forbid anyone who responds by criticizing them or doesn't wish to work with them. From the Washington Times:

A California judge has ruled that actor Sean Penn can pursue a legal claim that he was fired from a film because of his piquant political views and a brief visit he made to Iraq last December.

Mr. Penn is perhaps sensitive to the issue. His father, actor and director Leo Penn, was one of 300 Hollywood regulars "blacklisted" during the hearings from 1947 to 1951 of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which examined the possible Communist underpinnings of the performers.

Penn is suing the producer for $10 million dollars. And the producer, Stephen Bing responds:

Mr. Bing, in turn, is suing Mr. Penn for $15 million, claiming the actor is trying to extort money and aspires "to turn their business dispute into a First Amendment crusade."

"Penn crosses over a bright line into unprotected speech when he publicly advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government," Mr. Bing said in court papers, adding that Mr. Penn trashed "any standard of decency" by posing for photographs under a portrait of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and meeting with regime officials during his visit to Baghdad.

I would think that Penn has the right to say or do what he wants -- on his own time. But -- as many of my libertarian readers have taken me to task for in the past [in discussions of gay rights in employment and housing] does Bing have the right to NOT work with someone whom he feels has compromised the prospects for the movie, and whom he feels revulsion towards?

I'm not taking sides here, I just think it's going to be an interesting case to follow, if it really makes it to the courts. Any comments?