I had a really nice holiday enjoying the best of small-town life with the parade, barbeque, and I just returned home from the fireworks show on the lake. Hopefully, you all had a terrific 4th as well.

Just a couple of quick things: I'm glad InstaPundit is back since I go through withdrawal when he decides to go lallygagging in blue lagoons. My Blogson Eric is still snorkling asea, and posting (okay, one post) via satellite from the boat. I feel so homebound...

I'm not going to post anything much tonight because I have to get up for work in about six hours (yes, I'm working Saturday and Sunday -- get out those tiny violins) and anyway, it's the weekend and I take them off.

Just going through the email that came today (spam NEVER takes a holiday) I did receive one interesting note from Mike Gaynor who has just (yesterday) launched a new site called RedPaper where "reporters" can post stories and articles on a large variety of subjects and set a price for them, from 5 cents to a dollar. Folks can register with the site and read a brief synopsis and if they like -- buy the article.

Is this the future of blogging? I don't think so, but I could well imagine this becoming a model for large media such as newspapers. Many already charge for reading stories more then a week or so old and ABC TV charges to view repeats of their news shows on the web. Anyway, all very interesting to see how folks attempt to make the internet pay. Me, I just rely on the kindness of strangers to throw a little something to the "kittys."

Have a safe and fun weekend and I'll see you all here Monday morning if not sooner.

It's the get-away time for most folks so I'm not going to post about anything tonight. Yes, there are some gun stories but they can wait till next week. I will be home tomorrow and will be taking pictures of my small-town parade and stuff, and maybe I'll post some of them. In any event, I wish you all a safe, happy, Fourth of July.

There is plenty we wish was better in this world. If you listen to all the whiny liberals, America is the worst place in the world. Yes, there are a few things that could be better here. But I really don't see how any rational person could think they would be better anywhere else than the United States. There is more freedom here, more liberty, more openess, more ability to change what is wrong, more opportunity, more of everything that makes life worth living.

There is nowhere else in this world I would rather be tomorrow than right here in Fairlee, Vermont, celebrating the birth of our nation.

Have a great holiday everybody. I always take weekends off and this one is starting early. I'll see you all back here next week. Thanks for stopping by!

Just a couple of things on this holiday evening. I'd like to point you all in the direction of two bloggers who have kindly added me to their blogrolls:

Say Uncle is definitely a pro-2A blogger who loves his (greatest guitar ever made) Les Paul but fears it's in the Pantry with God knows what else. I know what that's like. The back bedroom of my home is some sort of Outer Limits. Only the cats go in there and they've dragged all the cool stuff there. They know I don't dare enter...

And Zee at Spiced Sass has gone through what most folks our age have. We partied during the sixties and seventies but came around to realizing that it was only our great country that made that possible. As she says in the masthead:

So, be warned. Hell hath no fury as a woman who has found her allegiance and rediscovered her country. I'm an American. Do.Not.Fuck.With.Me.

Lastly, attention bloggers! I do check places like Technorati (which only picks up about one third of the linkers to me, and the Ecosystem which picks up about two-thirds. The rest I google with "Alphecca blog" and folks -- that's the only way I know who's linking to me. That misses a lot of you.

The point of this is that if you have been kind enough to add me to your visible blogroll, please email me and let me know and I will quickly add you to my "friends" blogroll. Otherwise, I might not know about you. Don't be shy. I love emails and I try to respond to all.

From the U.K. Independent comes this article about EU gun ownership. I suppose the point of it is to show that several European nations share some of the "gun culture" -- their words -- of the U.S. Here's a quote:

Finland, with its strong hunting tradition, has the most legally registered guns in the EU at 39 per 100 people, the UK has 10 - one third of the German and French figures - and the Netherlands has two. Gun laws are tightest in the UK, the Netherlands and Poland, while France has more legal handguns than the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, England, Wales and Scotland combined.

Mr Karp said the assumption there is no overlap between European and American gun culture is misleading. "We have been acting as if this was a comparison between Mars and Venus, but that does not always hold. Many - but not all - countries of Europe have a strong gun culture," he said. He also highlighted the convergence between US and European problems in controlling illegal firearms - thought to exceed those that are registered - and of armed crime.

The story goes on to present some statistics that could be misleading -- as far as the United States is concerned. Here's what they've offered:

Firearm-related deaths (in 2000)

United States: 30,419 (11.3 per 100,000)
England and Wales: 159 (0.3 per 100,000)
Germany: 1,201 (1.5 per 100 000)
France: 2,964 (5 per 100,000)

Gun ownership per 100 inhabitants

United States: 83-96
European Union: 17.4
United Kingdom: 10

First of all, I haven't seen the original report so I don't know the methodology behind it. While some parts of Europe are starting to have high immigration, and are beginning to suffer from serious drug crimes and the attendent gang-related shootings, I would say that America being the huge melting-pot that it is magnifies these problems and probably the statistics.

In addition, they've probably lumped in gun related suicides (a common ploy by anti-gunners) and the U.S., for what ever reasons (probably the lack of a huge socialist-welfare net) does have a much higher suicide rate then most European nations (although I believe Norway is higher. I don't have time to check right now.)

Lastly, America being the wealthiest of the nations mentioned, does also, because of our history, have a LOT more serious gun-collectors. Indeed, the average gun-enthusiast in the U.S. probably owns far more firearms then the enthusiast in other countries (if for no other reason than the draconian gun-control laws now in place in most of Europe.) This is certainly what drives up the guns-per-capita numbers, though they make it sound as if 83-96 percent of all households in the U.S. own guns. We know this is false, the number is really only about 45-53% depending on who's survey you look at.

Hopefully one of the brainier bloggers will get hold of the report and give a more in depth reading of it. As I've said many times though, there is a price for freedom and as the U.S. is the free-est of all nations, I am not troubled by these numbers. Actually -- I don't really believe them. The reports from England indicate that it has a higher rate of crime then any other leading economic country as this Telegraph story claims:

England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations.

The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.

According to the comparison of international crime statistics produced by the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, England and Wales had 9,766 crimes for every 100,000 people in the year 2000. America had 8,517, South Africa 7,997, Germany 7,621 and Russia 2,022.

That's as reported by their own precious United Nations. "Heh." So I guess I would take the previous story's statistics with a huge boulder of salt.

---

Update 7/3 evening, I received this comment from a buddy of Alphecca:

In your most recent post you said...

"In addition, they've probably lumped in gun related suicides (a common ploy by anti-gunners) and the U.S., for what ever reasons (probably the lack of a huge socialist-welfare net) does have a much higher suicide rate then most European nations (although I believe Norway is higher. I don't have time to check right now.)"

Below I've linked to a nifty webpage that breaks down some figures.

Guncite link

Notice, if you will, that Japan has a similar death rate to the US. Sure they have a smaller homicide rate, but they make for it by suicide.

"Indeed, the average gun-enthusiast in the U.S. probably owns far more firearms then the enthusiast in other countries."

This is something that I've noticed long ago. The average number of guns owned by the average gun owner is 5. No, this isn't scientific, just my own observation.

--James of Hell in a Handbasket

Thanks James!
Here's another great comment:

First, the figure given for firearms deaths in the US does indeed include suicides, which are the majority of firearms deaths in America. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the availability of firearms has no influence on the overall suicide rate; Where guns are more available, more people commit suicide with firearms, and less by other means. Stands to reason, actually; Few people commit suicide by drowning in deserts, or leap to their death on flat ground, too: People use the means available to them.

Interestingly, the majority of the remaining deaths consists of criminals murdering criminals; It's actually arguable whether the relatively high murder rate in the US is actually a bad thing, or just an informal death penalty for having a criminal lifestyle; Only about 20% of American murder victims lack a criminal record, and it should be remembered that not all criminals have a record. Murder of law abiding Americans is relatively uncommon. I don't know how this compares to other countries, however.

It might be worth noting that the FBI has a policy of listing a death as murder if it's so recorded in the initial police report, regardless of whether subsequent investigation determined the killing to be lawful self defense. Which tends to artifically inflate our murder statistics, and might account at least partially for why so many murder victims in this country are criminals.

With regard to international comparison of suicide rates, the US suicide rate, at 15.9 per hundred thousand in 2000, was roughly comparable to that of Sweden (15.3) and Germany (15.1), and lower than Finland (31.7, must be a very depressing place!), Japan (26.4, but they record murder of spouses and children by husbands as "family" suicides, distorting both their suicide and murder statistics.), France (21.0), New Zealand or Australia (18.5), Canada (17.0), and Norway (16.2). Admittedly, the Netherlands (10.4), and United Kingdom (9.9) had significantly fewer suicides. But to say that our suicide rate is "much higher" isn't quite accurate.

I think the key factor to understand, though, is that even though murder is more common in American than in at least some countries with stricter gun control, it's still very uncommon indeed. Trading a few more murders, mostly of criminals, for a lot less muggings and robberies, strikes me as a good deal.

Finally, it's worth recalling that the US consists of 50 states, which have murder rates ranging from 10.7 to 0.9 per hundred thousand. And it isn't the heavily armed states that have the high murder rates...

--Brett B.

Thanks Brett. Good points all around.

Yes, it's that time of the week. Time to check out the bias exibited by Yahoo on their Gun Control Debate Page. And this week's chart is dedicated to Bitter Bitch, an enthusiast of my chart-mania. And I know she likes .22's.

That's right, girlfriend, it's the Ruger Mark II model KMK10 sporting a 10 inch bull barrel for competition shooting.

Anyway, only four new items appeared this week (at least as of 10 PM Tuesday when I'm writing this.) I again read through every story and you can see that the chart has shifted a bit in our direction.

One story from late last week came from the St. Petersburg Times (FL) about a Florida gun control activist trying to get local officials to close the "gun show loophole." And not getting very far with them:

County Commission Chairman Ted Schrader said Wednesday that the commission doesn't see it as its place to intervene in federal law and micromanage gun laws. He said enforcement of existing laws remains a priority, but enacting new county regulations is a step too far.

Dade City commissioners listened to Hayhoe's pitch and thanked him for presenting the issue but took no action.

I'd give that a "heh." Florida has plenty of good ol' boys who recognize the value of an armed populace.

There were two stories from Canada about the end of the legal period set up for subjects there to register their long-guns. Both essentially said the same thing, that officials are hoping more folks will register by the deadline but that they won't be penalized if they register after the deadline. From the CBC:

But Wayne Easter, Canada's solicitor general, is encouraging gun owners to keep registering even after the deadline has passed.

"We're not intending to go on a witch hunt," he said. "But if circumstances are such that police officers come across a weapon or gun that is not registered, then those people are eligible to be charged."

However, no one registering their firearms past the June 30 deadline will be reported to police, he said.

Gee, maybe that's because the country is facing open revolt of the law from more then half the provinces. From the Globe and Mail:

The law allows police to charge first-time offenders, who have not registered long guns under the Firearms Act, and penalties could result in a $2,000 fine or six months in jail. Or police may lay Criminal Code weapons charges of illegal possession, which carry tougher penalties of up to 10 years in jail.

However, it is not clear who will face prosecution for failing to register. British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have announced that they will not prosecute people who fail to register rifles or shotguns.

If they ever try something like this here in the U.S. almost everyone I know says they'll ignore the law and if it ever came to a California type situation they'd bury their firearms in the forest somewhere rather then turn them in. Oh yeah, sure -- you can take my gun. I'll give you the bullets first. Come to think of it, isn't Australia starting their confiscation scheme right about now? What whimps they turned out to be. At least some Canadians are putting up resistance.

The last item was this ode to gun control in the SF Gate. Marking the tenth anniversary of the 101 California mass shooting at a law office, the author waxes poetic over how the survivors have pulled together along with leftist-fascist Dianne Feinstein to enact gun control measures that wouldn't have prevented the massacre. And check out this quote:

Just last fall, state lawmakers repealed an obscure law giving gunmakers special immunity from lawsuits. The action came after the state Supreme Court ruled that victims and relatives of those killed at 101 California couldn't sue the manufacturer of military-style assault weapons like the one used by the gunman.

Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, said that representing the victims in their lawsuit was a "labor of love."

Oh yes, Dennis, the smell of money had nothing to do with your good-hearted actions...

Oh well. I guess that's it for this edition. An hour early but what the heck, I'll put it up now. See you soon. Thanks for stopping by!

With the Fourth of July rapidly approaching, I thought I might revisit parts of the Bill Of Rights to see how they're holding up after all these years. Guaranteed I'll offend some on both the left and the right... Consider this my first annual state of our Bill of Rights report.

The Bill of Rights
Amendment	Original Text	These Days...
1	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.	However, liberals will prohibit any mention of any God anywhere. In fact, liberals will not tolerate any speech they disagree with or that doesn't synch with their agenda. In addition, to peacably assemble means resorting to violence, disruption of speeches, blocking traffic and breaking windshields of cars. Conservatives would like to outlaw many free-speech items, such as pornography, movies that portray Jesus in less then flattering light, and any mention of homosexuality. Both are in love with boycotts.
2	A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.	Except that liberals believe that the civilian militia doesn't exist, and anyway, although all other rights apply to individuals, somehow, this one does not. And furthermore, why should a citizen be allowed the power to defend himself and his loved ones when the police might actually show-up in 10-25 minutes to mop-up the blood and summon the medical examiner?
3	No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.	So far so good!
4	The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.	Except that conservatives believe that even the flimsiest of suspicions should immediately justify a vaguely worded search-warrant. In addition, cars and homes can be seized for any minor crime and without waiting for the outcome of a trial.
5	No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.	But come to think of it, conservatives feel that laws of privacy between a suspect and his priest or lawyer are no longer privileged and can be monitored and recorded. Especially if the government thinks you might have something to do with terrorism, no matter how flimsy or circumstantial the case. Heck, just belonging to the wrong nationality qualifies. And don't even think of paying for your airline ticket with cash!
6	In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.	Well... Define "speedy." Can't we just hold the suspect for six months or a year without actually charging him? And "impartial jury" shall be defined as a collection of idiots hand-picked by the lawyers. And in many states, indigents will have to pay for their legal services anyway...
7	In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.	Except that what with all the pain and suffering resulting from -- oh, let's say a bunion caused by defective shoes -- all civil suits shall be filed with a minimum demand for ten million dollars, barely enough to retire on for most professional victims.
8	Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.	Define "excessive." What's wrong with $275 for speeding? $1500 plus forfeiture of your car plus your name published in the local paper because you chatted up a prostitute who happened to be a police woman? Parking in a "no parking" zone? Just try to buy your car back from the pound...
9	The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.	Bwahahahahaha! Liberals know what's good for you and they'll legislate or litigate your disgusting behaviors such as fast-food and cigarettes. Conservatives will simply try to post a cop in your bedroom. Both will insist on your backing up your computer's hard-drive onto Department of Justice main-frames just in case there's an mp3 or jpeg on it that shouldn't be there...
10	The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.	Fortunately for Congress, there don't seem to be any of those...
11	The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.	Which really bugs the European Union. But the U.N. is trying to change all that.
12	The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a =majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.	Except that liberals have used "White-Out" on this Amendment as well as clause 3 of Sec. 1 of Article II of the Constitution because no matter what the Constitution says, we really ought to elect presidents by popular vote or else a Republican like Bush will steal it. What the hell is an "electoral college" anyway? Do they encourage diversity? Well they better! Except for the professors of course, who should all be leftist-liberals...
13	Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.	So far so good. Unless you're from asia and are held prisoner in a sweat-shop in a large city. Then we'll all look the other way because the clothing you produce and the food you cook are absolutely fabulous, darling!
14	Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.	Section one includes pregnant women crossing the borders into our country and "dropping their load" so the baby (especially in California) is entitled to free medical care and schooling. Section two does not apply to liberal democrats who support vicious, murderous despot dictators in foreign countries. Section four used to be employed by Democrats but now has become the province of Republicans...
15	The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude	Worthy and good. Unfortunately, this Amendment has also been interpreted to mean that anyone so stupid that they can't figure out how to work a punch-card is also entitled to have their intentions "read" by various Democrats employing occult means such as trying to pick-up the vibrations from dimpled chads...
16	The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.	And boy do they ever!
17	The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.	Well, okay.
18	After one year from the ratification of this article, the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation...	Boy, that was a success, huh? And proving that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, we have the incredibly costly and never-ending "war on drugs."
19	The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on account of sex.	Good.
20	The terms of the President and Vice-President shall end at noon on the twentieth day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the third day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin... [etc.]	So far so good.
21	The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.	"Bartender, drinks for everyone. And give them all to me!" (--Lou Grant on the Mary Tyler Moore Show)
22	No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who May be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.	Oh, come on Bill Clinton, cheer-up. Cheat on your wife a few more times -- after all, Hillary just started on the sequel...
23	The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the district and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment...	Who gives a cow-pie? But I suppose they ought to have some representation in Congress.
24	The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax...	Good. And, unfortunately, much needed. But it does show that our Constitution can be a living one that grows, or adapts to right various wrongs. Especially --in this case -- those injustices perpetrated by our ancestors who ignored those famous words, "All men are created equal."
25	In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. [and etc.]	If enough folks kick-the-bucket, Nancy Pelosi could become president. But I guess there has to be some plan in place...
26	The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.	No problem, although as Jay Leno proves every few weeks with "Jay-Walking," most don't have a clue about anything. None-the-less, if we can ask them to fight in wars, then they should have a chance to vote for who's sending them over there...
27	No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened...	Just in case the few new members of Congress would rather not get a pay-raise...
28	Marriage can only be between a man and woman.	I'm just making this up. But if I was a betting man, I'd wager this is the next Amendment. *Sigh.*

So there you have it. The earliest Amendments are the ones that insured our great country's survival. They did then and do now remain the envy of every other nation in the world. Unfortunately, they are also the ones suffering the most erosion. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, the right of freedom from search and seizure, all these and more are under assault almost every day in some court somewhere in this country.

Worse, in the name of security, administrations blithely pass legislation -- such as "Total Information Awareness" and "The Patriot Act" that bring the government's scrutiny of everything we do into closer focus and erase what little privacy remains in our lives. In addition, such cliches as "innocent until proven guilty" have become just that -- slogans that no longer enjoy reality in our growing police-state.

But, you see, we are the ones that have allowed this to happen. The government can only take from us what we are willing to give them. Or give them implicit permission to take. We all were just too busy and self-absorbed to pay attention to the chipping away at the wall of protections provided by our Bill of Rights. The wall is still there in most places but it needs shoring up. This might be one area where the blogosphere can make a difference and motivate folks to roll up their sleeves and start the rebuilding. One post, one blog at a time. Until big media notices and pays attention. And when they start echoing us, the average citizen might start heeding the warnings and become involved.

Perhaps a movement could be started. A slogan -- The Rebuilding of Rights -- or hopefully one of you can come up with something far better, to get things going. I simply throw it out there for discussion. I'll try to do my part. You can help. Maybe a central, communal blog to get everyone galvinized and draw attention.

As always, I welcome comments and will print them here. Anyway, thanks for stopping by!

---

Update 7/1 evening, comment:

I love the idea of a Bill of Rights review. Keeping in mind that this is your first go at it, here's some quibbles I have:

1.
"Both are in love with boycotts." Sure, but what does this have to do with the First Amendment, which prohibits certain government actions?

2.
"Except that conservatives believe that even the flimsiest of suspicions should immediately justify a vaguely worded search-warrant..." Fine, except that this is far from an exclusive failing of conservatives. The left is just as cavalier about respecting the Fourth Amendment--the folks who killed Donald Scott out in California didn't work for all-Republican administrations!

And I have a simple disagreement about this one:

"But I suppose they ought to have some representation in Congress"
Heck no! How many different ways can you think of to spell "Conflict of Interest"? The only problem with the 23rd Amendment I can think of is it doesn't completely disenfranchise full-time government employees. (Conflict of interest, again.)

Overall, as I said already, I think this a commendable effort and I hope you will continue it.

Thanks, --Kirk P.

P.S. No day where I read the words "Spitzer loses again!" on your site can be all bad, that's for sure!!!

Thank you! I wish I was more of a legal or historical scholar (more meaning I'm not at all) but I just slog through these things doing the best I can. I'm glad the first comment was a pat-on-the-back.

Update 7/2 pm, another comment:

You actually missed a few ways in which the Bill of Rights is being violated. The Supreme court, reading that business about "all criminal prosecutions", somehow found an "except those with sentences less than six months" clause. Either the legislative sentencing limits or a judge's vow not to sentence you to longer than that can trigger this magical exception. And the best part? You could, theoretically, be charged with a few hundred counts of some offense, (Let's say, oh, that you had a hundred songs downloaded off of Napster...) and the sentences could be run consecutively.. Life in prison with no jury trial!

When it comes to the Seventh amendment, the joker is that $20 bit; You can also, according to the Court, be denied a jury trial in civil cases, if the plaintiff doesn't ask for money. That's why the recent NAACP gun suit in Brooklyn was heard before an "advisory" jury, whose verdict the judge could ignore if he felt like it: Because the NAACP didn't ask for money, they asked for the firearms industry to be forced to obey unenacted gun control laws written by the NAACP...

--Brett B.

Thanks Brett. Good points. Anyone else have any comments? Just email me at comments -at- alphecca.com and I'll post them here.

Walter Olson has an op-ed in the N.Y. Sun with the good news that N.Y. State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has lost his appeal to sue gun makers for crimes committed by criminals using firearms. Here's a quote:

Like a gambler doubling down, Mr. Spitzer chose to argue the appeal personally rather than sending a staff lawyer. No luck. Of the four appeals judges in Tuesday's opinion, only one thought he'd managed to state a viable claim. As Judge George Marlow noted in his majority opinion, the theory that gun-selling is a nuisance, if accepted by the courts, would have no obvious stopping point: "Such lawsuits could be leveled not merely against these defendants, but well beyond them, against countless other types of commercial enterprises, in order to address a myriad of societal problems - real, perceived or imagined - regardless of the distance between the causes of the problems and their alleged consequences, and without any deference to proximate cause. "Moreover, Judge Marlow rebuked Mr. Spitzer's attempt to use litigation to achieve victories for the gun control lobby without the need for legislation: "Courts are the least suited, least equipped, and thus the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micro-manage the manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of handguns."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Read the whole thing because Walter Olson really flattens Spitzer.

Oy Vey! [so that's how it's spelled? --ed] [I don't know, leave me alone --js] So Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist thinks the latest Supreme Court ruling stating that folks are entitled to some privacy in their bedroom is an open invitation to crime being considered a private matter above the law. Well, that's what he said yesterday on ABC's "This Week." Huh? from AP writer William C. Mann, here's a quote:

"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually - or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week."

"And I'm thinking of - whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home - ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."

Frist is saying that the Supreme Court ruling opens the door to all sorts of illegal activity being sanctioned by society.

So because same-sex relations are no longer illegal in some back-water states, this means that murdering or raping or molesting someone in your bedroom will suddenly be protected by the Supreme Court ruling? Frist tops-the-cake when he states that allowing two women to touch each other in their bedroom will open the door to legal murder in that same bedroom. See folks, this is where idiot conservatives (and also liberals) lose it; they get hysterical over nothing and blow it up to a fake issue to rally their troops.

Folks, I have spent the last eight months slamming liberals. But I also slam conservatives. This is the stupidest statement by someone who claims to have a brain, but nothing he said yesterday would indicate that. If you read that quote you would think that the Supreme Court gave the okay to selling illegal drugs or to child-molestation as long as it was done in the privacy of your bedroom.

Here's what I said a couple weeks ago:

I don't buy the argument that "the foundation of marriage will crumble." That's bullshit. It hasn't happened here in Vermont -- despite everyone's dire-warnings that it would. There has been no big rush by heterosexual couples to get divorced. Teen boys haven't started waltzing around in dresses. Actually, there seems to have been no effect at all on the "institution" of marriage since civil-unions came into being.

As for the claim that it [gay marriage] makes a mockery of marriage -- pay very close attention all you straight guys and girls -- the only ones who can make a mockery of your marriage are you yourselves. And a heck of a lot of you seem to be doing just that.

Bill Safire had this op-ed yesterday which started out as a lament of the lack of morals in our society but concluded with:

Rather than wring our hands and cry "abomination!", believers in family values should take up the challenge and repair our own house.

Why do many Americans derogate as losers those parents who put family ahead of career, or smack their lips reading about celebrities who switch spouses for fun? Why do we turn to the government for succor, to movie porn and violence for sex and thrills, to the Internet for companionship, to the restaurant for Thanksgiving dinner ‹ when those functions are the ties that bind families?

I used to fret about same-sex marriage. Maybe competition from responsible gays would revive opposite-sex marriage.

For those who are interested, here's a round-up of related readings:

Glenn Reynolds on Fox.

Dave Kopel and Glenn Reynolds. Jack M. Balkin.

Jacob Levy.

Eugene Volokh.

Eugene Volokh.


I said before that encouraging more folks to marry would only strengthen the institution. Only tired old fossils can think otherwise but most of them are too busy cheating on their wives and questioning their sexuality to realize it. Hey folks! We are a people who like sex in all it's forms and it's about time we all grew up and accepted and acknowledged that. For whatever reason, The Court found the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional and that's good because it keeps the cops out of our bedroom.

Update 7/1. I really hated this post so I've edited it and cut out all the nasty language. Chalk it up to a temper-tantrum. Anyway, here are some comments I received:

I think you're missing one aspect of Mr. Frist's greatest fear. Mr. Frist is afraid that the courts will condone criminal activity as long as it takes place in the privacy of someone's home. But that's pretty much what goes on today.

I don't mean that criminal activity is condoned, but that the court severly curtails the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute criminal activity if it takes place in a private home.

--James from Hell in a Handbasket


First, Don't mess with Texas. Texas is decidedly not a "back-water state", though we do have parts that are back-woods. Large parts of Texas don't have water or woods.

Second, who knows where the courts will extend privacy? The right in not enumerated in the Constitution so there are no Constitutional restrictions on at. It can extend where ever the courts choose to extend it and if SCOTUS agrees, that is where it extends. Murder is not likely to have privacy protection per se, but lesser crimes may derive some protection due to extended privacy rights. Someone might want to argue that spousal or child abuse in the home is a private matter. And when it comes to child discipline, in some states, what used to be acceptable discipline is now considered abusive. This might change, and as I stated in another comment, this might be a good thing. On the otherhand, claiming privacy protection for incest is not a good thing but it is not inconceivable that someone would try to claim it.

There is certainly reason for concern in some areas just as there is reason for hope in others.

--Jim Hart of KipperCat

Kinayda at Kin's Kouch disagrees as well and has a post here? (link not yet working) titled "Disagree With Jeff Day Again." Again! Anyway, head over there and scroll down to it. I'll check tomorrow and if the link is working I'll put it up here. Nobody can accuse me (ever -- visit my archives) of not printing or linking to dissenting opinions.

My curse is really that while I take swipes at both the left and right, only the right reads or links me and I never receive support from the other side... But as I said above, this was one of my crappier posts so I'll take my lumps.

It's good to see The Fuze at WeckUpToThees putting up regular posts again. And he brings up an interesting idea. The only way to get folks to realize that they really do want a big tax-cut is to eliminate the "painlessness" of having their employer withhold taxes each week. Instead, he suggests that employers still withhold the weekly tax but put it into a savings account and force the citizen to write that big check to the IRS in April. As he puts it, sort of a Christmas Club in reverse. He's got a lot more so -- as we in the blogosphere are wont to say -- read the whole thing.

---

I'm doing something I've never done -- sleep with a woman... -- no, actually I've been with a few, you dink. Actually, I was going to say I'm listening to iTunes while doing this blog thing. I've always been worried that my wimpy old Mac would somehow get bits and bytes confused and screw up my website. But I feel daring on this hot-humid day off.

Anyway, that allows me to creat an incredibly clumsy segue to pointing out that Wyatt at of Giant City has kindly made available some of his music as mp3's. You do know that he is a professional musician? I'll have to wait until I'm at work Wednesday to download them high-speed instead of at my slow rural dial-up at home.

Hey -- Segway -- it's more than just a stupid way to get around...

---

Roger Kimball at the New Criterion's blog, Armavirumque, posts this short entry as a good reminder that you should beware of what you wish for. If black Americans are celebrating last week's Supreme Court ruling that quotas -- at least if employed in a suitably subtle fashion -- are okay -- it perpetuates the (in my opinion) myth that blacks and other minorities couldn't get accepted to colleges on their own merits and intellect in this day and age. He has a great quote from Mark Steyn:

As a general rule, the more noisily an institution proclaims its commitment to diversity, the more slumped in homogeneity it gets--at least when it comes to the only diversity that matters, not diversity of race or gender or orientation, but diversity of ideas.

David Brooks (New Spectator) echoed these same thoughts yesterday on Chris Matthews' show when he (as many others have in the past) pointed out that our colleges and universities show an astounding LACK of diversity when it comes to hiring teachers and professors. They are all (at least 90% of them) screaming liberals. Which means our children are only indoctrinated by one twisted side of the political spectrum.

By the way, I'm still rather amazed that Armavirumque has listed an amateur like me among the illustrious members of their blogroll. I'm afraid to email them to ask why for fear they'll say, "oh shoot -- is that "piker" still listed? But I thank them.

Of course, this places a burden on me to elevate the way I write (and rant) so I remain on their blogroll, and maybe some other high-brow folks will also link to me. Of course this really cramps my style. It means I have to pretend to be intelligent and thoughtful. Ghod, the pressure! And in my next post (the one you probably read first) I was planning to tear a new one on Bill Frist...

---

Hey, a couple 'nother kind folks have linked to me. WizBangTech (sporting a fresh new Mt look) has kindly blogrolled me. Check Kevin out.

And David at Media Review too.

Thanks!