After that last rant, I probably have no readers left. But I feel better.

I notice that there is a lot of activity by many blogs to get linked-to as much as possible. I'm as much of a media-whore as the next guy (after all, who doesn't want to have their pearls of wisdom read by a wider audience?)

So if any of you bloggers would kindly add Alphecca to your blogrolls, please do and let me know so I can add you to mine.

And please visit all the folks on my "good friends" blogroll over on the left -- they're all much smarter and lucid than me. They all have interesting stories to tell.

Anyway, I guess this wraps up another week here in the land of tranquility known as Alphecca. As usual, I take weekends off to recharge and reload... I wish all of you well. Thanks for stopping by!

See, I don't know what the anti-gun folks of this country think. Do they really believe that anyone wanting to carry a firearm for self-protection or to excercise their constitutional rights is some extremist dressed in camouflage who lives in an underground bunker on some remote compound?

I rather enjoyed this story from the Twin Cities Pioneer Press yesterday. It, without a whole lot of condescension, catalogs the ordinary people applying for gun permits in Minnesota under the new law. Here's a quote:

Bergstrom, a partner at the Last Gun Shop in Minneapolis, carries a .40-caliber SIG-Sauer and is a certified gun safety instructor.

"I think it's a combination of being a personal safety measure and of reasserting the Second Amendment," she said of why she wants to carry a gun.

Though he agrees that it should be his right to carry a gun, Dan Gronseth of St. Louis Park said his primary reason for wanting a permit was for personal safety when he mountain-bikes through city parks. Two biking enthusiast friends are also getting permits to carry.

And:

Many Anoka County residents who stopped by the sheriff's office Wednesday viewed having a handgun permit much like owning other government-issued documents - they might as well have one just in case they one day need it.

"There's still some people who have a driver's license but don't drive," said Dean Stephens of Andover. "It's my right."

I know that the coastal liberal elitists can't entertain any opinion that differs from theirs because to them, tolerance means belittling and shouting down any ideas that don't agree with their own. But in the real world, lots of ordinary, good folks want to protect themselves from the very same mutant thugs whom those coastal liberal elitists have set free or refused to prosecute, because they found all sorts of excuses for why these mutant thugs shouldn't be held accountable for their miscreant deeds.

*Sigh.* This was supposed to be a short post linking to a simple, pleasant story. And now I feel a rant coming on...

I'm sick of excuses. I'm sick of bogus rationalizations. I'm sick of hearing leftist liberals and most (not all!) Democrats excusing the violent, rotten behavior of criminals. And for that matter, thugs everywhere in this world. Excuses are like butt-holes -- everyone has one and they all stink. Liberals seem able to excuse and make rationals for any criminal behavior such as robbery, murder, despots in Iran, Iraq, the Taliban, Palistine, and on and on.

God forbid you should try to excercise your God given right to defend your life -- such as a gun owner or, on the larger scale, Israel -- Well then you're a fascist, right-wing extremist not fit to live in the paradise that liberals are trying to create here on Earth.

Liberals, and all their limousine Hollywood types have no fucking clue as to what the average human being goes through to survive each day. They have no idea of what it means to be raped, mugged, to lose a loved one to murder, or on the larger scale, to live under real oppression and subjugation. They actually believe that the Iraqi people would have been better left alone to live under Saddam Hussein. Liberals are mentally sick and diseased. They are brain-defective. They are the ultimate hypocrites.

Remember, these Hollywood types who make all the movies and TV shows that portray any conservative, religious person as somehow weird and extremist, these Hollywood types all have concealed carry permits but would deny that same right to anyone else. That's a fact!

Oh! And because there are some conservative AM radio shows, and one -- count 'em -- ONE TV network (FOX) with a conservative agenda, somehow all big media is now under the control of the "right-wing" of this country.

Never mind that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and tax-payer funded NPR and PBS all slant every single news show -- and entertainment show! -- to the ultra-liberal left. Never mind that all the big newspapers such as the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, in fact just about all of them except the Wall Street Journal, they not only slant their editorial pages to the hard-left, but slant the stories they cover to the liberal side as well. What total fucking hypocrisy.

Look at our universities, where it is the leftist liberals staging all the protests, many of them violent (Okay, all you over 40's folks, remember, "Support peace or I'll kill you?")

I'm going to take a deep breath here and calm down. I've had enough. I've had enough of all the bullshit liberals keep shoveling out into our society. I've had more than enough of the hate-America agenda that liberals keep propagating. I'm tired of it. But, I will keep fighting it and exposing it here on Alphecca. If you all want to de-link me, so be it. If I'm down to one visitor a day, so be it. No fucking surrender! I will fight on and write on until my last breath. And if you don't like that, (as Kurt Russel said in John Carpenter's remake of The Thing,) "well fuck you too."

Saturday morning:

And another thing! If there's plenty pissing me off about the far-left liberals of this country, that doesn't absolve the far-right conservatives, some of whom's thinking comes straight out of the stone-age. Nobody should think I am overlooking some of the intolerant stench emanating from people still fighting the Civil War or shackled down with tiresome fundamentalist religions. Generally, they're just slightly more polite about where or how they express those views. But the views are still polluted. (Man, I'll never get this metaphor thing right...)

So in conclusion: Can you all just start thinking exactly like me so this becomes a perfect world? I'll lead the way (he said as his flashlight flickered out...)

---

I was almost afraid to check my email this morning but here are some comments:

You haven't lost all of your readers. I usually read your blog every day and enjoy your point of view. I am in the process of getting a CCW here in Michigan, although it is a pain in Wayne County, even with shall issue.I took the required safety course, but was not really happy with the way it went. There is a new gun shop/indoor firing range near my house that is owned, by of all things, 5 local police officers! They also have a course that they teach that I have heard is very good. I am seriously thinking of taking it just for more practice.

I may end up getting a different carry gun. The one I have right now is a Wilson CQB Compact (45 ACP). It is great to shoot, but might be just a bit big for carry. Will have to see. Keep up the good work. I am afraid that I can't link to you as I don't have a blog, but you have at least one reader

--Dan in Michigan

And:

...When you write from the heart, it might seem risky, but it is cleansing and purifying...

I also enjoyed your poetry, and a funny thing happened when I tried imitating you. I posted it with the title "Ain't hard to be a bard" and then it just disappeared completely All there was was an edit tag, and no words or links. Magic, disappearing poetry! I had credited you with the idea, but I think ghosts or gremlins have strangled my inner, baby poet it its cradle! No more inner poets -- dead or alive, for me. (Rant bumpersticker: "My inner child can beat up your honor student!")

I love your site, and you don't need to apologize for ranting. Keep it up!

--Eric Scheie

"Do they really believe that anyone wanting to carry a firearm for self-protection or to excercise their constitutional rights is some extremist dressed in camouflage who lives in an underground bunker on some remote compound?"

As a resident of Massachusetts, I will answer: Yes, yes they do.

The hoplophobia (or as I like to call it, Shootenhass) around here is disturbing. Even the "friendly" ones constantly crack jokes about my impending shooting rampage. Coworkers believe that I would transform into a dangerous lunatic if I were ever granted a concealed carry permit. They say they "would not feel safe" if I was carrying-- which presupposes that (a) I would tell anyone if I were carrying a permitted concealed weapon, and (b) that I'm likely to go on a shooting rampage because the copier is jammed again.

The local police chief-- who is granted full discretion to issue or not issue pistol permits-- told me in no uncertain terms that the 2nd ammendment don't fly 'round here. Specifically, he said that I do not have the right to own a firearm, despite what I read in the second ammendment.

Then there's the people I wait for the train with. One of them remarked "Well, it's easy to get a gun in Massachusetts." I almost fell down. The only way that statement could be true is if we define "easy" to mean "remotely possible." How can I debate someone who obviously lives in an alternate universe? We must agree on a specific reality before we can have a rational discussion.

So, you see, they really do see gun owners as dangerous extremists. The problem is that they are not expected to prove that we are dangerous extremists, and proving a negative is logically impossible, so we can't prove we're not.

And that's my rant. Hope you enjoyed it.

--Greg (witholding last name in case the local police chief sees this and refuses to renew my license) Massachusetts.

Thanks everyone.

See, I'll just snip in the compliments to boost my hyper-inflated ego...

And that's not a good thing. From the New York Post:

Meanwhile, two bodega employees, Jose Acosta, 69, and Victor Alejandro, 23, are alive following an attempted armed robbery the same day.

And it's a perp who's dead.

Sadly, Acosta and Alejandro are now charged with criminal possession of a weapon.

As three armed would-be robbers entered their store waving guns, Acosta pulled out a .22-caliber pistol, fatally shooting one; the others escaped.

Now, Acosta and Alejandro are looking at jail time.

Because unless you're a member of Aerosmith, you aren't allowed to protect yourself in New York City. The process of getting any sort of permit in NYC is almost impossible. And it's unlikely that fake, phony, fraud Republican in name only Bloomberg is going to change that.

I've noticed lately that many bloggers (some big-name ones, too) have been posting poetry on their sites. And I was thinking, you know, I'm a pretty sensitive fucking guy myself; I ought to be able to write some of this poetry crap too.

Check this out:

As I stare at the sky,
And a cloud goes by,
I have to ask why,
And the cloud says, "buh-bye."

Shit, that was easy!

Let me try another:

The lake looks so placid,
That my brain goes quite flaccid,
Then I think of your daughter,
Naked in the water.

A ripple on the surface,
A nipple-tease on purpose,
A wave washes on shore,
I hope she's a whore.

Wow! That one came out great! You know, I was worried that, like many of my regular posts here, I might get a good beginning going but then shift into "rant mode."

Oh, cool! I feel another poetic thing coming on:

A Thursday afternoon and I'm off from work,
Reading the paper, I think, "Oh, what a jerk,"
Bill Clinton wants to change the 22nd Amendment,
He should fall in a ditch and spare us embarrassment.

Who knew I'd be so good at this thing? Okay, okay, here's another one:

The Democrats have no new ideas to push,
So they've decided to blame it all on Bush,
They think GWB has done it all wrong,
And I hope these stupid fucking ugly -- tit, butt, ass -- Democrats all fall into ditches and hurt themselves and go away and I hate them all and why don't they all just move to Iran and Grrrrrrrrrrrrr, they ignore the U.S. throng...

Well, I guess I got carried away there but at least the last words rhymed and in this poetry type stuff, that's all that counts...

Oh man, I am such a natural at this thing:

I think I'll have a few drinks now,
And shorten the connection between synapses,
My poetry is so "high-brow,"
I hope my site statistics don't collapses...

I can't believe what a cinch this poetry junk is...

Until tomorrow, this is deeply sensitive Jeff signing off...

---

Update 5/30: The first test to my fitness as a gubernatorial candidate has appeared! (Link wasn't yet working at BlogSpot.) Now that my creative juices are really flowing:

I've just got a challenge from Jay,
A dare is a dare, what the hay,
He says don't link "Maripat,"
By Golly, I won't do that,
It's just not a nice thing to say...

I'm always impressed by Verbosity,
Plenty of comments, not viscosity,
He's always quite active,
His posts are most factive,
And appear with a lot of velocity.

Okay Jay, top that!

That's the conclusion of Amnesty International:

Releasing its annual report into global human rights abuses in 2002, the London-based watchdog made one of its fiercest attacks yet on the policies pursued by the United States and Britain in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

If the war on terror was supposed to make the world safer, it has failed, and has given governments an excuse to abuse human rights in the name of state security, it said.

"What would have been unacceptable on September 10, 2001, is now becoming almost the norm," Amnesty's Secretary-General Irene Khan told a news conference, accusing Washington of adopting "a new doctrine of human rights a la carte."

Does anyone even take these assholes (at Amnesty International) seriously anymore?

Yes indeed! We need to bring back the good-old days of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. They understood what human-rights is all about and respected the dignity of their subjects citizens.

And of course, AI declares that Israel is guilty of war-crimes.

It's no mystery that these leftist jerks hate America. What is a mystery is that there are actually idiots out there who donate money to this organization...

---

Update: Here's an anecdote from a good friend:

Just read your post about AI [Amnesty International] and was reminded of a story I heard first hand. As I've said before, I work as head doorman, and one of the bar's managers told me about when AI came to our venue for a "do". My friend who runs that bar was serving one of the customers (they were all AI people) when another started demanding to be served. The guy was clearly intoxicated so the bartender decided that this guy had had enough to drink and wouldn't be served anymore, and told him so. He then, despite this guy's protestations, tried to go back to serving the person he was serving originally. However, the customer said "could you serve him first?" pointing to the drunk guy. My friend wasn't about to do this, so he went along the bar trying to find someone who wanted to be served. None of the people there wanted to be served before this drunk guy. He told the guy he wasn't going to get served and that no one was to buy him drinks, and if they did they would be confiscated. Later, the bar's manager found this guy with a drink and confiscated it... at which point the guy got very abusive (he'd tried to reach over the bar and grab the bars manager earlier as well) and was yelling threats about trying to get him sacked, etc.

Turns out this guy was a regional manager! Now, is it just me, or does that sound like a culture of intimidation within AI itself? No one would stand up to the boss, or wanted to be seen getting served a drink before him..

--Charles

Liberals are very good at demanding. They're so special and they're so much smarter then us common folk. Right.

There are few writers I have less respect for then John Derbyshire. But like a moth to flame, I read him as well as everyone else. In his latest screed, I really hope he's just trying to be humorous. Or is he really suggesting that anyone who works for the public sector shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Hey, I just report -- you decide...

This is a totally off-the-wall guess. I'm guessing that InstaPundit, Rachel Lucas, Bill Quick, et al are off line because of a problem or a server move by Hosting Matters (which happens to by MY web host service also.) Way back in March I went through the same thing as the specific server that hosted Alphecca died and Hosting Matters decided to move to another location. Read that post. In it, I warned that Hosting Matters was warning that eventually all sites would be moved. I know Glenn uses Hosting Matters and I believe Rachel and Bill do too.

Since I can log onto my control panel at HM(which lives on my server) but not the "community center" which lives on one of the big servers, I suspect I'm right. So either their server died or they are being moved and if it's the latter, then once the IP's are resolved they'll be back on line. In the meantime, I'm suffering withdrawl...

No, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either...

Update: Apparently there was a fire at the site that hosts many of the servers used by Hosting Matters. On The Third Hand has details. I had no idea so many of my co-bloggers used Hosting Matters... Sites are starting to come back online...

Yahoo just linked to another story about the socialist, leftist, liberals-run-wild state of California recommending that .50 caliber guns be outlawed. From what I'm sure is the gleeful L.A. Times:

A ban on the sale of .50-caliber guns passed the Los Angeles Police Commission unanimously Tuesday, the latest in a series of measures designed to ban or limit the availability of weapons and ammunition in the city.

Police could not cite any instances in which the powerful weapons have been used to commit crimes in Los Angeles.

Those are the first two paragraphs and I include both of them to show just how stupid and hypocritical this potential ban is. The guns (.50 caliber) are absolutely no factor in crime, but gee, that's a scary sounding caliber number so we better ban them.

Folks, these guns (such as the Smith and Wesson are too big and too expensive to be of interest to gang-bangers. But all gun-grabbers care about (witness the "assault weapons" bill at the national level) are sound-bites and cosmetics.

I always think of this when someone like NBC Today's Katie Couric intones about some crime being committed with, "a nine-millimeter gun" as if she thinks that's the scariest thing (caliber) she's ever heard of. And of course, nine-millimeter translates to .355 on the American scale. Just slightly smaller then the common .38 caliber.

Of course, it isn't the size, it's the power... (Okay, okay, I'll admit I'm dying to make a reference to something sexual here but will restrain myself for all the straight readers who come 'round...)

Anyway, this is all so stupid and just continues to show that the gun-grabbers' real agenda is to ban all guns eventually and to totally disarm the public, and to totally violate our great nation's Bill of Rights. I really feel for folks who live in places like California. Not enough to move there, of course. Thank God I live in Vermont! I'm gay, and I'm a "gun-nut." Vermont allows me to be both!

This breaking story is just too strange for me to even try to paraphrase it. But being the incredibly handsome fellow (oh, shut-up!) that I am, it certainly is reassuring... Okay boys, who wants some of this?

You'll just have to read that story to find out how gross my feeble joke was...

...over at the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page. I'd like to say that there's a lot to talk about this week but there isn't. Only a few new items appeared on the page. That's deadly to someone such as myself who likes to blabber at great length. Anyway:

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
05/28/03	11	2	8	No dominating item
05/21/03	13	2	6	NAACP loses jury advice, more Bush vs NRA, Denver fights liberal carry law
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
1st qtr '03 weekly avg	12.5	5	5	Good news Il & CO, CA judge dismisses gun makers in suit, ATF prosecutions, Sniper victim lawsuits, England gang murders
4th qtr '02 weekly avg	15.5	3.5	2.5	DC Snipers, Canadian Registry fiasco & NJ "smart-gun" law

One item snuck in hours after last week's chart was -- finally -- a link to an article in the Washington Times about the brouhaha over CNN's phony baloney story about "assault weapons." Yes, I will continue to put "assault weapons" in quotes because it's a nonsensical term. Or perhaps redundant when a weapon is used by a criminal. Anyway, here's a quote:

Two CNN broadcasts last week, which featured firing demonstrations by the sheriff's department in Broward County, Fla., suggested that firearms banned under a 1994 law are more powerful than similar, legal weapons. Yesterday, CNN admitted that was not true.

I place an item like this in the neutral column because it has nothing to do with gun control per se and because the Washington Times didn't put any spin on it. That's as it should be with news stories. Take note, New York Times.

The only two stories to rate as positive in the table this week (that is, not anti-gun and not for more gun control) came from the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal. The first was Monday's editorial about how gun control has become a losing issue for Democrats (except for the urban senators on the coasts.) I discussed this a couple days ago (oh, just scroll down and read all of my pearls of wisdom...) But here are two more (not contiguous) paragraphs from the editorial:

This probably explains why a Democratic presidential candidate such as Representative Dick Gephardt of Missouri, who pushed hard for the gun ban nine years ago, has been so quiet during the current debate. Most everyone save the party's urban liberal bloc -- folks like California's Dianne Feinstein, Michigan's John Conyers, New York's Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton -- wants the subject to go away. Otherwise reliable Vermont liberal Howard Dean is explicit on the point that gun control is a lousy issue for Democrats.

and:

But liberals didn't care about these details because guns were simply a wedge issue designed to scare suburbanites, and particularly women, into voting Democrat. Now that elections have repudiated the strategy, the party's enthusiasm has waned.

By the way, for another example of liberals trying to scare voters, see this hysterical editorial from the Washington Post which I discussed Monday.

But here's the thing -- if Dennis Hastert decides to actually bring the bill to extend the "assault weapons" ban up for a vote in the House, it will probably be late this year or in 2004 when the two big parties have already begun their campaigns for the presidency. And if -- if -- the economy is as it is now, and if we aren't involved in another military conflict, gun control could play a role in the primary season and eventually the election. Especially on the coasts. That's why Hastert's betrayal of Tom Delay is so unfortunate. Delay was right -- the "assault weapons" bill should just be allowed to fade away and not be brought up for a vote.

The other op-ed from Opinion Journal came yesterday from Brendan Miniter and was about how Denver's mayor was determined to fight the new laws in Colorado that simply say that:

1) If you are a law-abiding citizen with no criminal history, you can obtain a concealed carry permit without being subject to the whims or politics of the local sheriff.

and

2) The gun laws of Colorado apply everywhere in Colorado and a specific city or town can't pass more restrictive laws.

First, a quote from the op-ed:

Denver's Mayor Wellington Webb, however, is unfazed by the move toward self-protection. He quickly filed a lawsuit against Gov. Bill Owens and the state in hope of getting the new gun law tossed out. He claims that the law violates Denver's authority to make its own laws. Political leaders in more than two dozen suburban Denver municipalities are considering joining his suit.

Now, I've already discussed this quite a few times (and specifically in regards to the Colorado law. You can find links on my Gun Posts Page. ) But if you're new here, here's why Webb is wrong and the new law is right:

Let me use a (probably lame) analogy. Colorado says it's alright to sell fast-food. But Denver, being a liberal bastion of political correctness wants to social-engineer everyones' lives. So they outlaw fast-food. So there you are, you just bought a Big Mac in a neighboring town and your're enjoying it as you cruise down the highway and enter Denver. A cop pulls you over and arrests you for being in possession of fast-food. Silly and wrong, huh?

Well, Colorado allows you to conceal carry and to carry a gun in your car. But Denver wants to outlaw this. Which means that even if you are just driving through Denver on your way to somewhere else, and you are pulled over, you could be busted for possession of that gun. You can be legal in most of the state but as soon as you enter Denver you become a felon. Obviously that's wrong thinking and law-making.

Now I suppose that those who favor "states' rights" will say, "hey, we don't want the federal government telling us individual states what to do" and I tend to be sympathetic to that position. And so Denver mayor Webb is saying the same thing, that the state shouldn't tell Denver how to live or what laws to pass. But there is a point of diminishing returns in logic in local control where chaos would result if every town had different laws regarding our country's Bill of Rights.

It's one thing for a specific town to pass various zoning ordinances regulating land use and construction and things that immediatly affect the town itself. A speed limit on a local road, for instance.

But for something that concerns major issues such as the right to bear arms, or discrimination laws, or pollution laws, well then the state really should have the last word (over that of individual towns) since neighboring communities and citizens are affected.

This issue was played out here in Vermont years ago when a specific locale (I think it was Montpelier or Barre) tried to pass a local law banning concealed carry and the Vermont Supreme Court overturned the ordinance because it placed an unfair burden on citizens and more importantly, it violated the Vermont Constitution that says that all Vermonters have the right to bear arms for self-protection.

So I guess we'll all be following this Denver vs Colorado battle as it proceeds through the courts. Fortunately, Alphecca has a couple loyal visitors living in Colorado (you know who you are, and thank you!) who will keep us updated.

Anyway, I guess that's all there is this week. So thanks for stopping by! See you soon.

---

Update 4:46 pm...

The Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page just linked to this editorial in today's Denver Post which supports the one bill that provides for a uniform statewide standard (in Colorado) in issuing concealed carry permits (see my #1 above) but decrying the second bill that takes away Denver's right (my #2 above) to local (town) rule in regards to passing more stringent measures in regards to gun laws. This seems to me contradictory. Anyway, here's a quote:

Denver defends its policy as a valid exercise of its rights as a home-rule city. But the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by both the state and federal constitutions, with the state declaring: "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

That language clearly allows for regulation of concealed weapons, however. The real question is whether that regulation should be a uniform statewide standard or the crazy quilt of local rules that existed prior to passage of Senate Bill 24, sponsored by Sen. Ken Chlouber, R-Leadville.

If the editorialist had stopped there, this would be a totally coherent piece and I would certainly agree with it. But then they foul it up with:

The Post has editorialized for a uniform state law on concealed weapons since 1994. Unfortunately, the legislature didn't stop with that long overdue reform. Instead, it also passed SB 25 - a measure that, in our judgment, is an offensive intrusion on purely local affairs.

SB 25 strikes down local rules on where and how firearms can be carried, including the ban in Denver and other cities on carrying a gun openly. It also voids Denver's ban on certain assault-rifle "look-alikes," a law already upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court.

and:

But the state has no business voiding the purely local ordinances that SB 25 needlessly brushed aside in defiance of the wishes of local citizens.

But that's exactly the point of the first bill when you think about it. Why should a resident of AlmostAnyTown, Colorado suddenly become a felon when he enters or drives through Denver?

I mean, look, if you want to post a sign at some building or park that says, "no guns allowed," fine. But a city-wide ban -- which is what Denver is asking for -- totally flies in the face of reasonable local regulation of a right clearly stated not only in the Bill of Rights, but in Colorado's own constitution. "Oh, sorry, but you have to throw that Big Mac out the window of your car before you pass through Denver on your way to where ever," to further the example I used above. And then they'll bust you for littering...

So we'll keep our eyes on this battle...

---

Update 5/30: Thanks to Eric who sends this link to the NRA site with RealPlayer coverage.

Another long day at work. As I indicated last week, the Memorial Day Weekend is the big sales event for the company I work for and we all put in long hours before and through it.

I don't own or run the company. If I did, I wouldn't do this (sale) during Memorial Day. I'd really rather that folks spend time reflecting on and remembering those who served and died to protect us and our freedoms. I almost wish nobody would have sales on these days. That instead, Americans would spend time doing the same sorts of things they do on the Fourth of July -- celebrating America and all who have insured its existence. But I'm just a peon. So I put in the hours and do the very best I can to help the company I work for and to make sure I have a job to go to the next day.

Anyway, I'm exhausted at this point and I won't even try to post anything intelligent tonight. I've re-read what I wrote this morning and I'm blushing at my poor prose and focus. [That's par for the course for you - ed.][Shut-up, Kaus! - js]

I have one more long tough day ahead tomorrow and then -- mercifully -- I'm off Wednesday (Weekly gun-bias update day!) and Thursday. So normal blogging will resume then. Of course I'll have my usual poor prose and focus -- hey! Who put that idea in my head?

By the way, before I forget, there was a good editorial on Opinion Journal about how the issue of gun control is a loser issue for Democrats. Here's a quote:

Our suspicion is that the left has learned the hard way that gun control is a political loser. The first signs came in 1994, after Bill Clinton successfully urged the Democrat-controlled House and Senate to pass legislation outlawing 19 types of "assault" weapons. In November of that year, several Democrats who had supported the ban, including then-House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington, were voted out of office in the Republican sweep. Mr. Clinton later said crossing gun owners cost his party more than 20 seats. In 1995, the House voted to repeal the ban, which wouldn't even have passed without a sunset provision, but the effort died in the Senate.

Read the whole thing. It says with some eloquence what many of us in the blogging trenches and elsewhere have been saying all along.

Lastly, I have knocked NPR (National Public Radio) many times as being way too far to the left and bordering on anti-Americanism. But Vermont Public Radio does do a few things nicely. They don't carry most of the NPR "talk" shows. Instead, they play classical music almost all day, everyday. Around Christmas time they play lots of wonderful holiday music, chants, hymns, etc. And today they played a lot of "patriotic music." It made today go a little faster and seem a little more in keeping with the holiday.

Tonight, I plan to curl up with my cats and a book I bought at a second-hand bookstore last week, George Washington's War by Robert Leckie. The subtitle is, "The Saga of the American Revolution." It's a big book and will probably consume my nighttime reading for the rest of the week. But I think it is fitting.

Might I dare suggest that those of you with children consider turning off the TV -- nix the "Fear Factor" and other junk. And maybe spend some time explaining to your kids what the intent and meaning of this holiday is?

Or, perhaps, discuss with them this editorial from today's Washington Times about how Memorial Day affects some people and families. Aside from the dramatic statistics of Americans who have lost their lives in the war, there is also history, and also personal stories. Well, here's a quote:

The Civil War gave birth on both sides to the custom of decorating warriors' graves. Residents of dozens of Southern cities scattered spring flowers on Confederate graves in 1866. Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Mississippi still observe Confederate Memorial Day in April.

Historians trace today's Memorial Day tradition to the "Decoration Day" turnout on May 30, 1868. Army Maj. Gen. John A. Logan had ordered a nationwide observance, including at Arlington, where the first military burial was held four years earlier. Gen. Logan proclaimed "the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion.

There's much more and I think you will enjoy reading and discussing this fine piece.

Anyway, I should be back tomorrow night and until then, I wish you well. Thanks for stopping by.

One of the news items linked to today on the Keep And Bear Arms website (and I am a member of the web-ring, scroll down here for that) is this story from 365 Gay.com. It concerns a push to allow immigration to the U.S. of "permanent partners."

It surprised me that this was even mentioned on a gun rights site but I'm glad it was and even happier that the comments posted (at least as of this writing) supported the measure. I added my own there. I'm sure some anti-gay remarks will eventually appear but at least the initial ones are heartening.

Folks, I have yet to run into any discrimination in terms of comments, remarks, postings, or anything else by the pro-2nd Amendment websites, blogs, and organizations that I visit about my being gay. I also don't get any grief from anyone in the gun club I belong to. NONE. And of course, there are several gay bloggers who support gun rights listed on my sidebar but they tend to be libertarian or conservative like me.

All of the nasty comments I have been subjected to, all of the "de-linking" and so on, has come from the liberal left. They are the ones who shun me -- not because I'm gay -- but because I don't follow the proper "gay agenda." I'm pro-gun. Even worse, I'm pro-life. And don't even bring up the horridness of my supporting Israel. And I don't kiss the feet of most Democrats. Oooh, I'm a bad person.

I've said it before: I have found the pro-gun side far more welcoming than the liberal (and liberal gay) side. Liberals, and the bulk of the "gay lobby" in this country are the most intolerant -- and might I also add anti-America -- people I have ever run into. I didn't even know there were conservative gays who felt the way I did until I discovered the blogosphere. And no "conservative" site has ever de-linked me or rapped me. Heck, TownHall.com has linked (mentioned) me twice!

Well, I think it's interesting... Anyway, thanks for stopping by. See you soon.

---

Update: Well, anti-gay comments have started flooding in at the comments section at KABA and the "administrator" added the reason she included the original link:

Comment by: Newslinks Admin (5/26/2003) Just to quickly explain... I included this story, because it's about imposing on the people of this country to sanction, accept or fund any "minority" group's attempts to garner special privileges at others' expense. While not directly related to gun rights, such stories point out how our freedom is affected.

FYI - I accept everyone has personal preferences vis-a-vis gay relationships, but I ask that you keep them personal. This newslink is not about whether you find them abominable, but about whether or not certain groups should get special privileges at others' expense.

Nicki

Well, that's just bullshit. Giving rights to gays and their partners in no way diminishes anyone elses' rights -- except maybe the right to hate. There is no "expense" to anyone else. Oh well, so now I look like the fool. Usually I'm able to do that by my own hand but now others have helped me along... The small ugly extreme right of the conservative movement rears it's nasty head...

I may have to re-think my membership in this (RKBA) web-ring. I personally believe that affirming other peoples' rights to self-determination, to defend themselves, to the pursuit of happiness, to be secure in their home, person, property and yes, their love-life, only re-inforces everyone's rights. "Nicki" apparently feels her life and that of all Americans is somehow diminished by the afore mentioned push to allow same-sex lovers the right to join our great country.

How sad for her that like some fragile peach, she is so easily bruised and spoiled. At this point I'd say her comments indicate she's gone rotten...

Oh well, fortunately, there are still plenty of libertarians and conservatives out there who are rational and believe in freedom for all. Any of you care to comment on this? Just click here! I'll print intelligent (that is, non-obscene) comments here even if they disagree with me (as I always have.)

---

Update 5/27:

Well, the original article has been removed from the "news items for May 26th" which makes me think that someone over at KABA didn't want this controversy distracting from the issue at hand of defense of the Second Amendment. The item is simply gone, though the comments posted so far do remain at this link. Which I guess means that there can be no more discussion over there. In the meantime I received this comment here:

I was most heartened to read about your standing up to the bigots at the KABA web site, especially after what you had just said about the right wing generally being more civilized than the left. I have had exactly the same experience, and as to the few people who vent, there is a certain honesty there which, disturbing though it is, often exists side by side with an ability to at least hear out the other side of the argument. (And in many cases, they do not even know a single homosexual -- which makes you an ambassador at large against your will!)

With the left, when they hate your guts, they will never tell you, and gloss everything over with syrupy, politically correct palaver. A perfect example of this was the gays in the military thing. Honest conservatives asked hard, honest questions about hard realities which no one wanted to discuss. The left -- and particularly Bill Clinton -- while voicing loud support for gay rights, in reality were cynically using homosexuals to bash the military. They had (and have) nothing but contempt for any homosexual who really wanted to serve his country. When I realized the real nature of what was going on, I was horrified, and I have not seen things quite the same way since.

-- Eric Scheie

What's interesting of course is that many of the commenters there (at KABA) automatically assumed I vote Democratic (wrong!) or that I endorse the radical agenda of the NEA (wrong!) And "Nicki" the administrator claims that tax-payer money will be used for this program, thereby costing her. She also says she is an immigrant herself and benefited from this money. But the same could be said of any group wanting to immigrate to the U.S. so her comments made no sense to me. Oh well...

Yesterday's Washington Post had an editorial that -- surprise, surprise -- supported extending the "assault weapons" ban and even called for strengthening it. And of course they warned of the dire consequences if the bill sunsets as predicted. Here's a quote:

SOME OF THE MOST efficient firearms sought by terrorists -- international as well as domestic -- may flood the markets of this country if Congress fails to renew a federal ban on semiautomatic assault-style weapons...

Could someone remind me again of which incident of terrorism against the United States involved one of these "assault weapons?" Time's up. None that I can think of. Box-cutters, fertilizer, possibly anthrax, but no guns. They're not a factor. So this is just a scare tactic.

But here's where the Washington Post undermines itself and shows just how silly and inane the "assault weapon" ban is:

The 1994 law made it illegal to manufacture, transfer or possess 19 specific models of semiautomatic weapons. It also banned ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. If anything, the law needs to be strengthened. A Congressional Research Service report released last week found that U.S. gun laws in general can be easily exploited by terrorist operatives shopping for weapons in this country. In the case of assault weapons, the gun industry has found clever ways to make cosmetic design changes in their models to get around the federal ban...

But that's the thing! This "ban" was all about cosmetics. It had nothing to do with how the guns functioned; all guns, by various means, pretty much do the same thing -- pull the trigger and a bullet pops out. The bill concerned itself with things like the grip of the gun, the stocks, and a lot of other nonsense. This was a "feel-good" bill by Feinstein that accomplished NOTHING. Any weapon is an assault weapon when used by some mutant thug. Or it isn't when used properly by a law-abiding citizen.

But this also shows the way of the slippery slope because if you can ban guns simply because of the way they look, then you can keep adding to the list of cosmetics that you want banned. You can also turn around and say, "well a Glock 22 [which I own] does this and this just like the AK-47 so we should ban that as well." Leaving open the door for a complete ban on all guns. And let's face it folks, that is the ultimate goal of all these gun-grabbers.

This is why we must continue to pressure our congressional leaders to let this stupid bill die with the sunset. And if it should come up for a vote then we must make sure it is defeated. Don't sit on the sidelines and watch your rights slip away. Get involved!

There has been some discussion lately about the role (or lack of) bloggers play in journalism. The original story appeared at Microdoc-news. It first came to my attention via Glenn Reynolds. Now Eric Scheie has posts here and here about it. Thereby proving the thesis of the original story: That bloggers pick up a story, link it around with commentary, and so on. There's actually a flow-chart of how the entire process works in the life-cycle of a blogged item. And of course, now I'm commenting on it.

Anyway, Eric Scheie makes a good point:

Bloggers are to mainstream journalists as talk radio is to television -- a different venue. We should not forget why talk radio became the phenomenon of the 1990s. It was not simply because people needed to hear "the other side" of the story. There was a very important additional element: talk radio provided TWO WAY communication.

There's also discussion of the differences between a big media journalist and -- say -- me... I think most bloggers would agree that none of us are journalists, at least in the traditional sense. I don't consider myself one at all. I'm a commentater. As my "masthead" clearly states: This is a blog of my opinions. And frankly, without "big media" I would have nothing to talk about unless I turned Alphecca into one of those tiresome blogs that dwell on my personal life. Although now that I think of it, I am single and available...