The little Critter and Sambo cats will go to bed hungry tonight unless you donate to Alphecca... So click the image of these starving kitties to contribute... via PayPal
That's right, I have absolutely no shame...
Hey, it worked for National Lampoon magazine... I don't have a second home on Cape Cod. Actually, I'm broke. So please help me get the message out about freedom, patriotism, and respect for the Bill Of Rights and the importance of the Second Amendment.
Thank you very much!
Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer"
Alphecca gets noticed!
Check out these glowing
reviews I've just made up:
ZAGREB (Reuters) - A drunken Croat flasher got more excitement than he bargained for when he pushed his penis through a woman's fence and her dog bit it, local newspapers said on Friday.
The visibly drunk man was walking down the street and started swearing and shouting at the woman for no reason. He then shoved his penis through her fence, unaware her dog was on the other side, police said.
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) - Supermarket cashiers in Argentina are being forced to wear diapers to keep them from taking toilet breaks at work, a union says.
Female cashiers in western Mendoza province must wear adult diapers in case "cold, nerves, pressure or stress" provoke incontinence, union official Jorge Cordova told local news agency Diarios y Noticias on Thursday.
I'd say they need a new union official. Is this for real? Depends...
The precocious Kerry is one of nine candidates in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
"That is so great," said a beaming Dan Rather following a report on CBS Evening News. "Kerry says he will beat not only all the White House hopefuls in the primary, but also President Bush in the election. Keep it up, champ!"
In spite of Bush's campaign war chest of more than $40 million, Kerry maintains a positive outlook.
"Our country cannot afford to stand behind a president who cuts taxes in the face of huge military spending," Kerry said on NBC's Meet The Press Sunday. "We must choose a leader who is not afraid to make economic decisions that make us stronger in the future, not just the ones he thinks will keep him in office."
"Yes, sir, 'Mr. President,'" bemused interviewer Tim Russert said. "Whatever you say."
Sen. Hillary Clinton said Friday that Supreme Court victories this year for gay couples, minorities and women do not erase the distrust created by other "legally dubious" rulings, including the Bush v. Gore presidential election case.
What's that Billy Joel song about how "only the good die young?" No doubt when Hillory is president her litmus test will be so extreme that only Noam Chomsky could qualify... Liberals are such asshats.
Speaking of asshats, Christopher Hitchens is a total one for writing this at Slate:
To be paralyzingly, painfully, hopelessly unfunny is not a particular defect or shortcoming in, say, a cable repair man or a Supreme Court justice or a Navy Seal. These jobs can be performed humorlessly with no loss of efficiency or impact. But to be paralyzingly, painfully, hopelessly unfunny is a serious drawback, even lapse, in a comedian. And the late Bob Hope devoted a fantastically successful and well-remunerated lifetime to showing that a truly unfunny man can make it as a comic. There is a laugh here, but it is on us...
...Hope was a fool, and nearly a clown, but he was never even remotely a comedian.
Well, maybe not to a left-wing jerk like you, Hitchens, but to the estimated 600,000 troops he personally entertained over his lifetime, to the millions who saw his "Road" movies, to the more millions who enjoyed his TV specials -- yes, he was a comedian and a damn-good one. So go eat shit and bark at the moon -- you crumb-bum.
Two douche-bags who should fall into a deep ditch.
The remarkably anti-gun Christian Science Monitor just had this op-ed linked by Yahoo. It is about the thoughts of Susan DeMersseman, a psychologist, about the accidental shooting death of a 15-year old boy named "Kenzo." Here's a quote from the beginning, and then from the end...
Kenzo Dix was killed at the age of 15 by a good friend. He was shot accidentally with a handgun that the youngster thought was unloaded. The boy removed the clip but didn't realize there was still a bullet in the chamber.
and
The gun lobbyists argue that they fear "frivolous lawsuits." In this case, it is an oxymoron. No person who has lost a loved one when a gun was not carefully made or carefully sold feels the least bit of frivolity. They are, unfortunately, very serious. Kenzo's loss is still sad beyond explanation - but Kenzo's tree is still blooming.
Like most leftist liberals, DeMersseman tries to tug on all of our heart-strings with flowery prose. Is it a shame that a boy lost his life? Of course. But what she doesn't mention is the age of the boy that shot Kenzo. And what were those boys doing "playing" with a firearm? Who left a loaded firearm within reach of children? And why would one boy point a gun at another? And if the parents owned firearms, why didn't they teach their kid some basic safety lessons? And if the firearm was hidden or put away, why did the kids violate their parent's trust by sneaking the gun out?
If kids steal the car-keys and take their parent's auto on a joy-ride, and crash and one of the kids are tragically killed, why is that the auto-maker's fault? If kids get into the liquor cabinet and drink themselves into a stupor, why is Stoli to blame? If kids unscrew the back of the TV and touch the high-voltage coils -- why is Panasonic to blame? You get the idea.
Touchy-feely shrinks never get it right. It's always someone elses' fault, never the child's. The death of a child sucks, but it does happen and it should never be used as an excuse to abridge the rights of a free people.
Sorry, but I am un-moved by this story. This psychologist is so concerned by the potential of a life cut short yet I'll bet she supports abortion rights...
I thought I was done for this week but I just read this great post by my friend at Say Uncle and so just go there now. As a "big-wig" might say, "indeed!"
Regular readers ("Precious and Few") (it was a song...) know that I blather about much more than just guns-'n-stuff here on Alphecca. And one topic I mention every so often (here comes the giggling from some quarters) is the super-natural. This post isn't exactly about that. It's about how I view my brain and the way it stores memories. Yes, Alphecca is weird and varied...
We all have a ton of learned information and experiences. These are all dutifully stored in our brain. But how do some of them come to the surface quickly and others seem to get lost in the shuffle?
Over the years I've developed an imagery of how I think my (feeble) brain stores information.
When I think of my mind, I think of a big-old Victorian or Colonial house somewhere on a quiet country highway. You walk into the foyer or center-hall and there are several small tables along the walls where you store your gloves and keys and today's mail. This is where you store your everyday information. Appointments, often-met faces and names. What you were planning to have for dinner. And yes, where you last threw down your car-keys.
Off to the sides are the parlor and living room. This is where you put all of your active thoughts and conversations and everyday job skills. Also, memories of whatever book you're reading at the moment. Stuff you're learning in school. Or on the job. Clippings of what you've read in the newspapers.
If you walk further down the center-hall, you enter the kitchen -- still easy to reach -- and your cooking knowledge is in here, close at hand.
There might also be a library or den off of this hallway, where some subject you are constantly involved with or interested in holds all that you read and hear and remember. Fairly easy to get to and easily at hand. You love to read mystery novels and you pile-up the books there. Memories of these are quickly in reach.
But then, there's that big stairway leading up. And there are a bunch of bedrooms up there where you store your occasionally used skills. Some of the rooms are often visited and others are not. You like to go white-water rafting each Summer. Your memories and talents are kept in the first bedroom. Not within quick access but quick enough since all you have to do is climb the stairs and enter the first room and grab the info you were thinking of. Takes a moment but it's there fast enough. This might also be the type of room in the house of your mind where you store information about events your parents tell you of about rarely-met relatives. Info about your co-workers that you know you should keep relatively close at hand but you don't want to clutter-up the first floor with.
As you walk down the upstairs hall, the bedrooms become harder to reach but still not out of arms-length of your memory.
As a kid, I was an electronics enthusiast. I actually was one of those folks who built HeathKit radios and other things. I could actually read the color bands on a resistor or draw the schematic of a power supply. But in young adult-hood I became obsessed with many of the things most others do and electronics became less important to me. I still tinkered with it but I had my "brain-butler" move that knowledge to an upstairs room. Still within reach but not as quickly.
But these upstairs bedrooms are of limited size and can only hold so much. Some of the ones that are furthest from the stairwell are just boxes of ideas and experiences all covered with white sheets . Not that easy to remember where some trinket of information was placed...
Somewhere in my twenties I dropped it completely and had those boxes holding all of my electronics info moved to The Attic!
The attic of my mind is huge. It covers the entire house (foot-print wise) but it is really tough to get there. You have to go up a flight to the second floor and walk way down the hall, pull down that clunky ladder from the ceiling and then walk-up the rickety stairs and enter a dark, dusty, un-lit, cluttered room filled with boxes of stuff (memories) piled up everywhere to the ceiling. You're not even sure where your "brain-butler" stashed that box of stuff you are looking for so you have to start the tedious task of going through every box until you find what you're looking for. The work is so arduous that often you give up entirely or decide instead to ask a friend or buy a book on the same subject you used to know by heart because you used to keep it on the first floor just off the hallway.
You could -- given enough time -- find that piece of knowledge you already know but in THE ATTIC it's a slow crawl.
Some folks are born with quite a few --well trained "brain-butlers" and other servants -- and can quickly find anything in their well-organized house-brains. We like to say that these people have "photographic memories."
Others, tragically, might have suffered trauma of some sort that (like a fire in your home) destroys many of the boxes of memories stored in various rooms.
Some folks have extra-clear windows in their house which gives them extra insight into what is happening in the world and the folks they interact with.
Some folks have really sophisticated antennas on their roofs and can receive things others can't. Think of it as extra channels of varying reception that result in such concepts as "ESP."
There are a few people who have built --or replaced-- their windows with really big clear ones that let all ideas and information in. Sometimes it takes them a long time to do this but the result is that with an unusual amount of sunshine streaming in, they can change their minds. Alas, there are others who have put heavy drapes over theirs which don't allow anything in. Some folks have allowed their beautiful homes to fall into disrepair. Others --through exercise and exploring new interests-- keep theirs in tip-top shape.
Some folks build really HUGE homes to match their egos, but they forgot to fill the rooms inside with any furniture or possessions. The house (of their minds) is empty. There is nothing in there. All they care about is the outside. How sad... How empty and barren their lives and minds are.
At the other end of the spectrum, some kind people live in small, modest homes. A few unkind folk would call them simple or impoverished. But their homes are very cozy and welcoming. They don't put on "airs" and their door is always open! These nice people often make the best friends. The front-path is always clear of obstacles. The stairs are swept clean for you. There's always a couple of flower-pots about. Go-on, tromp-on in and meet a new friend. You would be surprised at how uncluttered, simple-direct thinking can often distill the truth for you. They're the most wonderfully open individuals you will ever have the pleasure to know.
And like every home, how do you keep up your "grounds?" Smart folk mow their lawn often, and plant pretty shrubs and flowers on the borders to attract the looks of passerbys. You want your self-home-mind to be attractive. You should be trying to maintain everything. Others don't seem to care and their lawns are overgrown and weedy and the house is falling-down and while the owner knows what is happening, they retreat into the house and keep the front-door locked. They never venture out and sit on the wrap-around front porch to greet others.
Your mind is like a home. Step outside now and then. Throw open the doors and windows and let some fresh air in. Take those "posted" signs down and instead put up "welcome" signs. Do some "gardening" and make your home beautiful. Stand at the end of your driveway and say "hello" to folks walking by. And if one of them should need some help, I'm sure you can find a spare bedroom to put them up in or at least cook them a hearty meal. Folks, it would do you good to have an "open house" once in a while. And it would be nice if our politicians removed their "for-sale" signs.
Again -- your mind is a house. I want you to remember that. It requires maintenance and other loving care. It also needs the windows to be kept open to new ideas and the doors left un-locked to the world-at-large. You can hide in a closet somewhere and pretend that nothing is going on outside the door -- or you can stand on your front-porch and breathe deeply and enjoy the view.
It's the weekend and as usual I try to take them off, but I'll continue to post your comments here at the end of my various posts. I really do appreciate and thank you for your visits and emails. I'll see you all here soon and I thank you for stopping by. Have a great weekend!
An aide to Orange County Executive Edward Diana is under fire after he and his friends invited some of the nation's brightest Young Republicans to what was advertised as a booze-soaked sex bash in Boston.
The controversy surrounding Diana's 24-year-old staff assistant, Karl Brabenec, started at the Young Republicans national convention July 11, when his friends distributed fliers "for lots of beer, liquor and sex" at a party dubbed, "Karlpalooza '03."
Aside from the fact that I'm old and ugly, how come I never receive invitations to these things? Damn!
This might be a good time to mention -- once again -- that I am single and available... There must be someone living near me who reads this thing and because of some un-diagnosed brain-damage thinks he might like to meet me...
Hey! If the vacationing Acidman can keep doing it on his blog, then once-in-a-while I can too. By the way, his lunatic stand-ins (guest-bloggers) are having a GREAT TIME over there so check it out... They're running the asylum!
Kevin from The Smallest Minority just reminded me that we all haven't settled on an official name for our new Blogospheric Political Party (if --incredibly-- you don't know what I'm talking about yet, see Reynolds - Lucas Ticket and
The R & L Platform.)
Several folks have suggested The Federalist Party. Kevin writes:
Anyone suggested "The Anti-Idiotarian Party"?
The symbol could be an idiot with the international "NO!" sign over it.
The Vatican fired a booming shot yesterday in the rapidly escalating political battle over gay marriage, issuing specific instructions for Catholic lawmakers to oppose any effort to give legal status to homosexual unions.
Does it matter? I mean, I thought priests were already forbidden to marry...
When I first started Alphecca nine months ago, some really nice people such as The Bitch Girls
and InstaPundit
and Aubrey Turner
quickly linked to me. They have my eternal thanks and that is the reason they have a special place at the top of my blogroll.
I emailed several other folks I admired a lot, and they totally ignored me. Big names. Didn't like me or couldn't be bothered. That's fine. Anyway, this is just a reminder that if you're kind enough to blogroll me -- let me know and I will quickly add you to mine. I appreciate these little things. And I'll help you get some notice if you're just starting out.
My buddy at Say Uncle has a great post with statistics about Florida and how the crime figures have dropped dramatically since the right-to-carry law was passed. Proof once again that mutant criminals fear a potentially armed person more then anyone else.
My friend Craig at Lead And Gold offers this commentary about Michael Savage (radio talk-show host.) He asks the perfect question -- why is this mutant still carried by 300 radio stations... I fully support freedom of speech. I'm just amazed there are so many folks who want to listen to what he has to say.
My blogson, Eric Scheie, has moved to a spiffy new, clean to read site. Adjust your Classical Values here! Eric is doing some of the best writing in the blogosphere these days. At this moment he's meandering through the Mid-West but just go there and enjoy great commentary.
Hey Eric, I admire what you're doing and one day I promise to visit my roots in the Mid-West as well. I really do feel my birth-town, Chicago, calling.
Well, the minor euphoria of last week's almost even chart couldn't last... Things are rather back to normal over at the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page. No one wrote me with a gun request this week (for the chart) so I'm using my favorite target long-gun here:
This week's model is the Marlin 25N, a bolt action .22 long repeater. 22 inch barrel. I first learned with a .22 bolt single shot Remington. I bought my 25N about eight years ago at a gun show new, for next-to-nothing and it was wonderfully accurate right out of the box. At the club's various meets I've had a lot of offers to buy this gun and I have turned them down because this gun is just plain great. It's fun, reliable, well made, dead-on-target, and fun. I said fun twice. It is.
So let's turn to this weeks stories... When you think of Utah, you think of proud, fairly conservative Mormons who appreciate the Second Amendment and the advantages of bearing arms. Not so the Science Christian Monitor which has proven in the past several years that it is one of the most anti-American, anti-Bill of Rights national newspapers.
Folks, I've been doing this weekly report for almost a year now and I have NEVER encountered a "pro-gun" story in their pages. Never. Utah had a rancorous time getting a relaxed carry law passed last year that allows folks with carry permits to carry in schools -- specifically colleges and other public spaces. This was in response to a mass shooting where no one could stop a fiend with a Sturm-Ruger Mark II .22 who killed several people. No one could stop him. No one had the means to fight back.
Now, they do. So far, there has not been another incident. Early days but it means something to me. Of course, inspite of what NBC and the other national liberal news networks would have you believe, mass shootings are rare. See (and hear) the previous post...
Well. Well! Brad Knickerbocker of the Christian Science Monitor is having none of it. Here's a quote:
One such officer is Lt. Todd Rasmussen of the Granite School District Police Department in Salt Lake City. With many large families in this predominately Mormon state, Utah has the youngest average age in the country. This school district alone has nearly 70,000 students and nine high schools.
"I don't think this is any place for a weapon to be," he says.
Taking care of vandalism, theft, school fights, growing numbers of gang-related incidents, attacks on teachers, and other offenses is a big job. Adding more guns into the mix, even if carried by normally law-abiding adults, only adds to the potential for deaths and injuries, says Mr. Rasmussen. With two children of his own, he adds, "I don't want a gun in the school with them, whether it's [carried by] a teacher, a principal, a cafeteria worker, or whatever."
How about a cop? Oh sure, that's alright then. After all, most folks become cops because they want to control other people. And they get to carry a gun. Anyway, in it's favor, I will grant that there is a brief quote from John Lott. But it's followed quickly by a quote from the Brady Bunch stating that the state legislature is out of touch with the average (albeit conservative) Utahn.
Folks, let me ask you something: Let's say you are in a public building with a bunch of other folks, doing your thing. And let's say there's some mutant criminal psycho who is about to pull out a firearm and start shooting. Would you feel safer if no one else in the building (except the mutant) had a gun or would you feel safer if some of your fellow citizens (some of whom we presume are law-abiding) were also in possession of firearms and could quickly put an end to whatever slaughter the mutant was hoping to commit?
Let's use another example that happens thousands of times a year. Let's say you are at home in your suburban house with your two children, ages 4 and 7. Your spouse is working late. Your kids are playing innocently in the living room. Suddenly, the front door bursts open and a couple thugs rush in. We assume this is a push-in robbery but who knows what they will do. They might just slap you around, tie you and your precious children up, and grab the silver. Or they might rape you or molest your kids. Or you might all be killed.
So here's your choice... You can dial 911 and hope that in the following 15 minutes it takes the cops to arrive, you'll all be fine. Or, you believe in the Second Amendment and grab your .38 and blow the mother-fuckers right back out the front door. Now you tell me -- which scenario do you prefer?
I rest my case.
I don't really know what to make of this story from the Globe and Mail. It claims that armed robbery is down. Of course, all robbery, and other violent crimes are down. The writer claims this is because of the Canadian National Gun Registry. Other's disagree:
There is no way of knowing what is truly causing robbers to abandon their guns, Prof. Gabor said, but the national Firearms Act that was passed in December of 1995 may have had an effect.
First, the law increased the mandatory minimum sentences for 10 different crimes committed with firearms, including robbery, to four years from one.
"Word of a mandatory minimum often gets out on the street," Prof. Gabor said, "and these mandatory penalties can potentially be a deterrent."
Second, he said, a survey conducted in 2000 by GPC Research for the federal government showed a decline in gun ownership. It found 17 per cent of Canadian households owned at least one firearm while surveys done between 1989 and 1998 put the number closer to 24 per cent.
Well now, a drop in "reported" gun ownership could be caused by the dramatic rebellion against the draconian gun registration laws. A whole lot of folks are violating it.
As for the possibility that "word of mouth" about a four year stretch in prison might be detering folks -- I say, ONLY FOUR YEARS? I don't think so. Criminals don't obey laws, and a paltry four years for a violent crime seems like nothing. I guess Canada is still way too much under the influence of England.
But how to explain these statistics -- I don't know. I live in a very small state (Vermont) where one single car accident resulting in death can move the crime statistics up or down dramatically. I have to assume that anomalies in short-term crime figures don't mean very much. The period between 1992 and 2002 was mostly a time of prosperity. Maybe there weren't as many desperate criminals around or they're older and retired. Certainly, here in the U.S., this has been used as the excuse by liberals for the drop in overall crime rates -- not the liberalizing of gun laws. So which is it? Check with me when another ten years have passed and maybe I can tell you...
From the Mercury News in California comes this op-ed titled "Sniper weapons should be restricted." Yeah. Okay. Sure. What exactly IS a "sniper" weapon? Since almost anything can be used as a weapon, I presume they must really mean any weapon used by a mutant criminal. Of course, the focus of this is the .50 caliber BMG rifle. Here's a quote:
A .50-caliber BMG sniper rifle, in the wrong hands, would be terrorism unleashed.
The gun is powerful enough to punch a hole in an oil tank or take down a civilian airplane. Its 5 1/2-inch long bullets can pierce an inch of armor 40 yards away and hit a target a mile away. A massive weapon, with some models weighing in at 28 pounds, it's ill-suited for hunters -- it would take out a deer and the tree behind it -- but ideal for assassins.
Again, ANY rifle or gun or box-cutter or what-have-you in the wrong hands could be "terrorism unleashed." But .50 caliber sounds scary. Much more so than the "9mm semi-automatic" that newscasters are so fond of intoning... Incidentally, my simple little Marlin 25N .22 caliber will send a bullet a mile away if the shooter stupidly doesn't know his back-stop. So that's a useless "scare tactic" as well in this story.
Can I just say one more thing here? I don't care HOW STUPID a criminal or terrorist is, it's highly unlikely they are going to lug around a 28 pound rifle. Here's the quote that really bugged me though:
...The burden should be on those who want .50 caliber sniper rifles to explain why, not on government to justify restricting them.
Au Contraire! The Constitution and Bill of Rights are permissive, not restrictive. That's a fact that I've argued here just last week! It should not be required that the patriotic American explain why he wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights. It is up to the (state) government to explain why he shouldn't be allowed to. And THAT is the problem with the concealed-carry permit laws of fascist-liberal states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California. (Of course, they suddenly, blithly ignore these laws when someone famous wants a carry permit. Hypocrits!)
The last item I'll blather about today is this lie filled editorial from the LA Times by Robert A. Ricker. Remember him? He's the turn-coat who used to work for the American Shooting Sports Council before he was... asked to leave? So here's a quote from this editorial titled, "Democrats Are Playing NRA Roulette":
Consider the facts. The Senate bill - S 659 - would shield even reckless gun dealers from accountability. Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the gun store linked to the 1999 shooting at the Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills and the sniper shootings in the Washington, D.C., area, cannot account for more than 200 guns in its inventory. The bill would place it above the law...
Wrong! (Picture John McLaughlin saying that...) If a gun shop did not follow proscribed legal procedures of state and federal law or were negligent, such as Bull's Eye, they could still be sued. That's the fact and Ricker is out-and-out lying if he claims differently. Which he apparently did just there. Here's another lie:
In 1999, I saw where the NRA and the gun industry were going, and I didn't like it. They began taking grossly irresponsible positions. For example, they opposed closing the gun-show loophole, which allows anyone to buy a gun at a gun show without a background check.
Any FFL licensed dealer at any gun-show in this country is REQUIRED to run an instant-check with the FBI before selling anyone a gun. This "loophole" doesn't exist as far as legitimate gun dealers is concerned! Ricker is lying!
Here's the story behind the story: A private citizen CAN sell a gun to another private citizen (in some states) in the parking lot of the gun show. How are you going to control that? They could just as easily conduct their business at the diner across the street. This has NOTHING to do with gun-shows and everything to do with scare-tactics by the Brady Bunch. Ricker (and other gun-grabbers) make it sound as if there are lines of folks simply plunking down their money at a table at some gun-show and a licensed dealer simply hands him the gun and that's it. That isn't how it happens.
I have seen the dangers of giving this industry immunity from suit. Almost twenty years ago, in California, I helped write a far more limited immunity law that has been used to protect some of the industry's worst actors. For years, victims of gun violence in California have been denied their day in court and the industry's marketing and distribution secrets have been safe. As a result of that injustice, I am happy to say that the California Legislature bucked the national trend and repealed the limited immunity law I helped draft many years ago.
There's no mention of THAT statement by Ricker in the L.A. Times. Is there any doubt that this op-ed in the L.A. Times is biased beyond belief? But here's just what "fake, phony, frauds" the editors at the L.A. Times are. Here's the description of Ricker given by them:
By Robert A. Ricker, Robert A. Ricker is a lawyer and lobbyist who has represented such groups as the National Rifle Assn. and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Why gosh! Nothing, not one word about his having to leave the gun industry. Not one mention that he is now under the employ, or at least the payment, of the GUN CONTROL lobby. What a farce. But the gullible denzions of California will eat-up his words because the L.A. Times doesn't have the basic, intrinsic honesty to admit where this writer is "coming from." Instead, they will just assume he's just a rogue part of the N.R.A.
THAT is total bias. That is what this weekly report tries to expose.
Anyway, I guess that concludes this edition. See you soon. Thanks for stopping by!
So tonight on the NBC Evening News, Tom Brokow had his three minute "indepth report" by correspondent Nora O'Donnell on the legislation to protect gun makers. Here's the audio:
Folks, the report starts right up with Tom Brokow stating that because of this bill, victims of violence are "afraid." Afraid of what? That they won't get lots of money because the perps probably don't have any?
Then, O'Donnell starts in with how the proposed bill would give the gun industry total immunity from all lawsuits -- a complete falsehood -- and it is only later in the segment that we find out (via the un-named NRA spokesman who provides the only voice in support for the bill in the entire segment) that well no, if the gun is defective or the gunstore acts illegally then yes, the victim can sue them.
And of course they've got N.Y. Senator Charles Schumer blathering away about how if this bill passes, victims will be left with no relief, "tough rocks" he says, from the courts. I presume he's also referring to money. I of course always thought that seeing the mutant criminals who committed the crime arrested and tossed in jail would provide the proper "relief" but I guess liberals think only cash can do that...
By the way, O'Donnell introduces Schumer by saying he's worried that this bill will limit victim's rights. True enough rhetorically but a clever way to insert bias because there is no right to simply sue someone or a company to Get Money if they've done nothing wrong. That's not a right. It's a wrong and Congress is trying to fix it.
And they've got the sales clerk who was one of the lucky (in that he lived,) early victims of the D.C. snipers yapping about how he won't get anything. And they conclude the segment with the sales clerk's boss asking the legislaters who support the bill to "think about what happened at his store..."
I think the NRA was mentioned several times in intonations such as, "the powerful NRA supports the bill" and such.
No mention was made as to WHY law makers might want a bill like this other than that the gun industry is suffering huge financial losses. If they had even inserted one simple analogy -- such as a victim of a drunk driver trying to sue the automaker -- it would have provided far more balance and made it clearer to the viewer as to why some are supporting this bill.
Hey folks, I admit I'm biased -- but I'm just a blogger. We should expect more from a national evening news broadcast. Yeah, right...
Tom Brokow is plugging a "special report" on lawsuits against the gun industry tonight on the NBC evening news. I'm going to record the audio and try to make it available here. I'm really curious to see if and by how much it will be biased against guns. I'm sure they'll have victims decrying any attempts to shield the gun makers from crime liability (which is what it all boils down to.)
Anyway, I'll be back tonight with that. I'll also continue to update your comments on the Reynolds - Lucas ticket. You can find that here and I've also put a link to that post (since that's where the comments are going) on the sidebar.
A gun distributor that won a lawsuit brought by the widow of slain Lake Worth teacher Barry Grunow wants her to pay its legal fees but won't go after her personal assets.
The Valor Corp. is suing Pam Grunow as a representative of her husband's estate, the gun dealer's attorney Tom Warner said Friday. The company says it is entitled to recover legal costs because Grunow lost her lawsuit accusing the Broward County company of being responsible for her husband's death.
Valor sold the .25-caliber handgun that Lake Worth Middle School student Nathaniel Brazill used to kill Barry Grunow on the last day of school in 2000.
Some might think this is a cold-hearted act by Valor, but folks -- this is just what is needed to make people think twice about filing frivolous suits, or including every possible deep-pocketed person or company as a defendant. If the parents of the fat children were forced to pay MacDonald's legal expenses when a fast-food suit is thrown out of court, well, you get the idea.
Granted, it's the greedy trial-lawyers who convince most of these litigants to file in the first place and to cast a wide net. What we really need is a law that says that lawyers can also be sued -- at least if they approached the "victims" about the suit. If the "victim" sought out a lawyer then the lawyer is just doing his job and shouldn't have to pay.
I don't know if that's clear or not but at 1:40 in the morning I'm not going to edit it right now...
Update -- reader comments:
"If the "victim" sought out a lawyer then the lawyer is just doing his job and shouldn't have to pay."
I don't know about that; Isn't part of the lawyer's job to tell the client whether they've got a valid basis for legal action? If a healthy person went to a doctor, and demanded to have one of their organs removed, it would certainly be considered medical malpractice if the doctor complied, no matter how competently done. (Well, aside from donating a kidney, but you know what I mean.)
The fact is, it's not the client who has the training to recognise a frivolous lawsuit, it's the lawyer.
Of course, a client who was really insistant could arrange some sort of reverse contingency fee arrangement, legally obligating them to pay the lawyer's expenses in the event the lawsuit was declared frivolous.
--Brett Bellmore
Emotionally, we want to go after the lawyers who agree to litigate these things but the fact is that a lawyer is like any other "business." Assuming that the lawyer didn't approach or "solicit" the alleged victim and that the individual instead approached the lawyer, then the lawyer is obligated to pursue the client's wishes.
He could certainly say to the prospective client that he doesn't "have a case," but let's face it -- there are some folks seeking out lawyers in order to file these kinds of cases specifically because they hope to "get rich." Just as a hair-dresser might think the type of haircut a punk-rocker is asking for is stupid but he is obligated to do it all the same, so too the lawyer is "hired" to do the client's wishes.
Also, lawyers probably (I don't know this for a fact) have the equivalent of "malpractice insurance" and wouldn't be so effected as would greedy "victims" such as fat-people hoping to make some money off of Burger King...
Now, with a few changes to laws, we could still hold law-firms liable for expenses IF THEY SOLICITED THE CLIENTS. The whole "ambulance-chaser" thing. In addition, I'm not a big fan of government interfering in private business but perhaps some standards could be established regarding what is a legitimate contingency fee.
By the way, lest some of you think I am completely against "victims," I would like you to read my post from a few weeks ago about a tort-reform bill wending it's way through congress.
Update 7/28 evening, here's another comment:
I agree with you.. I would like to see lawyers that take a case on a contingency fee listed as a party to the action, and therefore subject to countersuit.
Looking a the nature of the compensation of the lawyer tells us all we need to know about their motivation.
Another growth area of abuse is "Pro Bono" cases where the lawyers reap a windfall if their side prevails. This also is contingent reward that should expose the lawyer to "contingent liability".
Countersuit should not be a option against a lawyer who is merely an "agent", bills the plaintiff for actual hours worked, and has no "upside" from litigation.
--Bill Lever, Seal Beach, CA
My profile: 47-year old CPA, married, 2 kids, believes the Second Amendment is an individual right.
My kind of reader. Haven't heard from any lawyers on this yet...
Must support the Constitution and Bill of Rights as it was written and the original intent of it as supported by historical, collateral writings.
Must have a clear-headed view of foreign policy which includes the original intent of the Constitution, that the federal government exists to protect the states. This would include securing our great country from threats from other nations and factions (terrorist groups) bent on harming us, and taking appropriate action to eliminate these threats.
Must believe that a limited federal government means that they don't try to fix every single problem with some "global plan" that piles on a ton of regulations that attempt to (usually through "knee-jerk" laws) restrict the normal legislative process of the individual states, unless local laws are in clear violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the intent of permissive liberty and the persuit of happiness implied by those documents.
Must realize that "un-funded mandates" from the federal government are poison and only bankrupt the individual states.
Must believe in the absolute power and importance of the First and Second Amendments.
Must believe that the war on drugs -- especially soft drugs such as marijuana -- must end.
Must clearly state reasons for any action the federal government takes, and not assign blame to others or act evasively when things go wrong.
Must believe in an open and non-secretive federal government. By this, I mean that there must be no "closed-hearings" on any subject. The American people deserve to know what is going on, what our legislators think, and everyone must realize that if everything is out in the open, nobody anywhere on this planet can hurt us or black-mail us. "We are doing this and that because it benefits us through that and this."
Must agree to VETO any legislation that has had ammendments tacked on by various legislators that have nothing to do with the actual issue addressed by said legislation.
Must be able to communicate with the American people in a clear, coherent manner.
And harkening back to the first requirement...
Must believe that if the Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't specifically prohibit it, then IT must be allowed without restriction.
On item 9 on the platform, one way to achieve this would be a single-subject amendment to the Constitution. It, along with a line-item veto, are two of my favorites.
