So once again we come to the end of the week here at Alphecca. As usual, I've been all over the place with my posts. I hope you enjoyed some of them. I take weekends off to recharge my batteries and so I'll see you (I hope!) back here Monday morning. Thanks to all who write in or read me or link to me. I hope you all have a safe, wonderful end-of-the-Summer weekend. Hug your spouse, kids, pets...

Please come back soon. I wish you well. Thanks for stopping by!

I had mentioned that Agatha Christie was my favorite author in a post from a few days ago while discussing my friend Greg's blog, The Hobbesian Conservative. I LOVE mystery novels. I truly think that -- yes, yes, Arthur Conan Doyle was first but... -- Agatha Christie was and still is the single best mystery writer who ever lived.

Strong statement, Jeff! And you have a couple of friends -- bloggers -- who might take offense.

They shouldn't. I love them too but when you tally up the trail-breaking of the early writers of the mystery genre, anyone who doesn't include Agatha doesn't like mysteries. The rest of you are probably already *yawning* and wondering why I would end my week with a post about this.

I read a lot of books. A few "factual" ones of history, science, politics. But most of what I read is for enjoyment. I like Science Fiction and Mystery. In the mystery field, Agatha Christie pretty much invented every single PLOT you could possibly have. She was brilliant and at the same time she outraged the critics of the day (claiming, "not fair" but she was) with books such as The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and after you read that!, go read The Mirror Cracked and The Seven Dials Mystery and Murder in the Calais Coach (Orient Express) and follow up with the brilliant short story Witness For the Prosecution and then try to come back here and tell me she wasn't brilliant. She could and did play with you as you read her books.

She led you this way and that and all the time you were thinking, "oh, I know now who did it, she's so transparent" and she would continue to exert her fabulous misdirection and subterfuge. When you read the best of her books, such as the ones I mentioned above, she played you like a cheap fiddle and led you like a hungry cat from one construction and twist to another. You thought you knew it all and saw the outcome and in the end you got blind-sided like everyone else. And she wrote these great stories long before you were born!

These days you might not think these plots so inventive since every other 8-cents-a-word writer has aped and imitated her plots to death. But put yourself back seventy plus years and you'll actually realize her genius.

Agatha Christie freely admitted she wasn't writing science texts like her husband, but she wrote something better -- escapist fiction for the masse that presented a puzzle almost impossible to solve amid a scenario we wish we lived in. As for "cardboard characters" I suggest The Seven Dials Mystery for a sense of her humor and fleshing-out of her characters.

And by the way, she was most against the oppression and existence of the servant class in England and that's why they are usually portrayed sympathetically in her stories.

Here's another fact of her brilliance... She rarely (in her better stories) referred to specific things and trademarks and such. She (at the turn of the century) knew that the telephone would be a big thing but made it common-place in her writing. Planes -- no names of course -- were common place. Cars had no names or details. Agatha knew they were the wave of the future but didn't know how they'd look so she immediately incorporated them without (usually any) specifics. That's the brilliant writing that kept her stories fresh for years to come and still makes them readable without too much distraction from anachronisms. She was the best!

For the few of you that still enjoy reading books, why not head over to the bookstore and grab one of hers -- I recommend the ones I've mentioned above as a starting point -- and find a few quiet hours to enjoy it till the end...

So Isabel didn't even come close to the Upper Valley of VT/NH. But we did have bands of dark-stormy clouds passing through. No rain, and only light winds of about 10-15 MPR. But tonight as I hung out outside my favorite watering-hole for a drink or two, I stepped outside for a butt and noticed amongst the blue sky that there were cloud bands fiercely whipping across the sky. Like at light-speed. On the ground, just a few gentle gusts. But in the upper-atmosphere the cloud formations were flying! I told the bartender, he checked it out and in a few moments, the whole kitchen staff including the owner were out watching this frantic dash by the clouds.

This doesn't show the half of it or the furious motion. All "way up there" like a flying fisher-cat chasing a small (obviously not giant, extinct thing from my last post type...) rodent... Anyway, it was remarkable. You felt nothing on the ground but the clouds were transversing the arc of the sky in less than two minutes. Whippin'! I dig this kind of stuff SO MUCH. But I'm glad my small spot on Earth was spared and I hope my readers -- and non-readers -- everyone actually, didn't suffer too much from this unusual storm.

Northern New England is a funny kind of place. NNE (the acronym...) is comprised of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. And no -- inspite of what they might like to claim -- Massachusetts is NOT NNE. We have long Winters of cold, snow, and stuff like that but no real WEATHER. Nothing dramatic that would draw the cameras of NBC... No tornados or droughts or really -- anything drastic. We like it that way...

Don't like 'em? Then consider this story from the AP:

A rodent the size of a buffalo? Researchers say they have found fossils for a 1,545-pound giant that thrived millions of years ago in a swampy South American forest.

"Imagine a weird guinea pig, but huge, with a long tail for balancing on its hind legs and continuously growing teeth," said Marcelo R. Sanchez-Villagra of the University of Tubingen in Germany, the first author of a study appearing this week in Science.

Imagine the size of the cats that went after those things. Could that be how Saber-Toothed Tigers came about? Imagine the traps you'd have to set...

---

More tonight...

I forgot to mention that The Inscrutable American is back!

---

Seems as if everyone is mentioning their favorite commercials. My current favorite is the LendingTree.com commercial with the guy saying, "Like my car? It's new.......How do I do it? I'm in dept up to my eyeballs..." I love his maniacal grin while stating all of this.

---

It would appear that the blog "Everything Must Go" has. I hope Diane is doing well and maybe will surface somewhere again.

---

Bad State of Gruntledness has the same tastes in reading matter that I do. I never miss an issue!

---

Kevin Holtsberry is putting together a fantasy football team. He needs a LOT of suggestions. And make it snappy!

---

Lot's of good stuff over at Jame's Hell in a Handbasket as usual.

---

On the Third Hand has a round-up of hurricane bloggers and more "signing-up" in the comments section! Neat! Hopefully everyone will be safe.

During the campaigning leading up to the 2000 presidential elections, Bill Clinton was noticable in his lack of support for his vice-president Gore and running mate Joe Leiberman. Now, some think this was because of some bad blood between Gore and Clinton, or because Gore wanted to distance himself from Clinton and all the noise and scandle surrounding him.

I just find it interesting that instead of supporting Leiberman in this go-around, the former president seems to be -- again -- spurning Leiberman and instead is throwing his support behind Gen. Wesley Clark. From the New York Times:

Behind Gen. Wesley K. Clark's candidacy for the White House is a former president fanning the flames.

General Clark, in fact, said today that he had had a series of conversations with both the former president, Bill Clinton, and his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, as well as close aides to them and that all of them had encouraged him to run.

So you'd think Clinton must really think Clark is hot-stuff! But during his administration:

...while Mr. Clinton was president and General Clark commanded the allied troops in Europe ‹ it was a complex and tortured time for both.

To General Clark's humiliation, President Clinton's Pentagon relieved him of his command. And President Clinton had signed off on the plan, according to several published accounts, apparently unaware that he was being deceived by Clark detractors.

So what's going on? Are Bill and Hillary -- two of the craftiest politicians on Earth -- really just trying to further dilute the field of Democratic contenders? That would make sense if, despite all of her statements to the contrary, Hillary really is considering jumping into the fray if Bush continues to lose support and looks more and more vulnerable. From the Washington Times:

Bill Clinton tantalized a Democratic audience in California Tuesday night with a suggestion that his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has said she won't run for president next year, might change her mind after all.

This set off a new round of Hillary chatter yesterday among Democrats who say the current field has not yielded a breakaway candidate.

"That's really a decision for her to make," Mr. Clinton told a forum in Monterey, Calif., as quoted in the Salinas Californian, which suggested that the former president was only trying to turn the question aside.

Hillary would join a huge list of candidates who have flat-out stated they will not run -- and then do. "More tricks than a barrel of monkeys" sums up the carpet-bagging Senator.

If the election were today, Howard Dean would lose to Bush. If (rightly or wrongly) the public's perception of the war in Iraq goes south, Dean could become that "breakaway candidate."

But other than Dean, all of the current Democratic candidates are indistinguishable from each other and a late entry by the (mystifyingly, in my opinion) popular Hillary Rodham could take the field by storm. This all sounds like a plot from a Le Carre novel but aren't these machinations what politics are about?

Well, it looks like Isabel will pass well west of Vermont so all we'll get is some wind and rain. I'm sort-of a dramatic weather fan and I always look forward to thunder storms, huge snow storms... Well, we don't really get much else around here. I think Vermont averages about one tornado a year and they don't last very long -- those pesky mountains get in the way. Earthquakes are far and few and mild, as are our droughts. What I really need to do is move into a trailer-park somewhere in Kansas.

...Because I certainly don't cover it all...

My friend Kevin at The Smallest Minority has this cool report on the Texas A&M Pistol Team and the students trying out for it. Somehow, I don't think this could ever happen at UCLA...

---

My buddy Publicola has a report on Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Brown's Constitution Day speach.

I'm not a fan of Harry Brown. He's the one I've alluded to in my bio-page as being the reason why I can't actually vote for the Libertarian Party in elections, but Harry does have some good thoughts (and laments) here.

---

From my pal at Say Uncle, ... ... ... YES! No internet taxes!

---

Via The Enigmatic Mind who reported in this post about this strange story from the Sacramento Bee:

Dundell Wright, the parolee on trial for his life in the murder of a Sacramento police officer, was acting in self-defense when he killed the officer, a defense attorney said Monday.

"He did not shoot first," Wright's lawyer, Donald Masuda, told a jury in opening statements.

Deputy District Attorney Michael Savage, in his opening remarks, said Wright was first on the draw, shooting Officer Bill Bean Jr. before the officer could pull his gun out of its holster. That was when Bean's partner, David Bryan Hogge, returned fire, the prosecutor said.

Read the whole thing because it's a strange case. I'm making no comment here until I know much more about it. There have been a lot of abuses by cops of late but I don't think this is one of them. My gut feeling is that Wright was wrong. But I don't know that for a fact. I'll try to follow up on this next week.

Kelley at Suburban Blight has been kind enough to link to me several times. She has a great blog you should all be reading and further more, she wishes my cat Rainbow well. I've added her to my "interesting links" on the sidebar and I hope to soon add her to my "good friends" reciprocal links blogroll. Thanks, Kelley!

---

My good buddy Aubrey Turner is complaining about the cost of tires... I agree! These are just "things" from a giant "VacuForm" made of el cheapo rubber. However, I (like Aubrey) really like Good Year tires. My "ULTRA GRIP ICE" snow tires (no studs) are the best snow tires I've ever used. I drive a small, compact Mazda and these tires have never put me in jeapardy. They really were worth every penny paid. And in Vermont, we do get some serious Winters...

---

My friend Ted at Rocket Jones is having dental problems. As you all know, so am I. I even had a fund-raiser for it. He has problems too. My sympathies, Ted. But much more importantly, he has reported on the homosexual agenda. Folks, he's got my envious life down pat.

---

Hey! My comrad in firearms, Matt, at Stop the Bleating has a post about why he likes New York City but would never live there. I did, dude, and I'll never go back. New York is for the young or the rich. I'll take my very rural life anytime. I agree with Matt completely.

---

My conservative consulate Greg at The Hobbesian Conservative offers his thoughts on the Democratic "Ten Little Indians." Most of you know I think Agatha Christie was the single best mystery writer who ever lived. Hey Greg, you know how to put up a great title!

---

I agree with my good friend MammaBear at On The Third Hand in her post about this Michael Ledeen NRO story about the Iranians being very close to possessing the atomic bomb. Folks, this is scary stuff. At least the North Koreans are up front about it. But the Iranians are doing this in secret and could threaten the region, if not the world.

I've written about Iran. I am hopeful that the students and dissidents will bring the current regime down and bring Iran back into the democratic 21st century. But if the leaders are persuing this course of terrible weapons, well, they have to be next on our (the U.S.) list of targets of our forces. I don't know the answer but I do know that Iran seems awfully close to being a nuclear power and as the anti-Martha Stewart would say, "this is NOT a good thing..."

Yeah, so everyone else has hurricane Isabella on their minds. Not us! Around here we have nothing on our minds. Complete blanks! Okay, the reality is that at Alphecca, we concentrate on bias from the media regarding guns and gun-control and specifically the Yahoo Gun Debate Page. Until now, most of the stories and editorials linked to were biased in favor of the "anti-gun" position.

For the first time in almost a year that I've been tracking this Yahoo page -- in my opinion, the pro-gun narrowly exceeds the anti-gun links there. The neutral stories are in the majority but this is a monumental moment in that my very "un-scientific tally" indicates no anti-gun bias from Yahoo. At least in their selection of stories they link to.

It was already close but this week two "anti" stories fell off the front page replaced by one "anti" and two "pro-gun" links! That's all it took!

The lovely model for this week's chart is "Dierdre," an Ishapore R2A. Submitted by my friend Fuz from the blog Weckuptothees. He writes:

Dierdre, who is an Ishapore R2A---an Indian-manufactured Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Number 1 Mark III, but modified for the 7.62mm NATO cartridge instead of .303 British.

Dierdre's goal is to be a "trunk gun", down and dirty and cheap. The rifle itself cost me $80 from Paul Gallant, who writes for Blue Press and other publications, with Joanne Eisen and Dave Kopel (I knew him before he became famous). A ring around the barrel, made by Ashley Outdoors, provides scope mounting hardpoints for a "Scout Scope" (the gunsmithing to fasten the ring to the barrel cost more than the rifle or the ring).

The scope is a common Bushnell 2X handgun scope, which has about the right eye relief and price ($100).

I reworked the wood over a winter, by gruesome hacking, sawing, and gluing; wood was degreased with oven cleaner, then sanded down and finished with polyurethane. The barrel is freefloated with Brownell's Acra-Glas. A portion of the front end of the stock is now fashioned as a cheekrest on the butt. A ten-dollar nylon sling mounts to the stocks with 3 swivels---move the sling from rearmost to midships and it's the right length to tie in with the support arm, the sling's pad falls right above the elbow.

The magazine is the original Indian 12-round detachable box. She feeds from strippers on top.

I have only boresighted her so far. Can't use full .308 Win in her, she's not strong enough for that. But I will collect all brass fired from her, and only necksize it for reuse only in Dierdre.

Next steps: beadblasting all of the steel, then pastebluing or home parkerizing, if such is to be had.

So here's the chart:

Thank you, Fuz, for that anthropomorphic contribution... And because Alphecca is a REALLY sophisticated web-site, you can click on the chart for a close-up of the original image of "Dierdre."

So let's dig-in...

The new "pro-gun" stories this week concerned the Missouri legislature overriding the governor's veto of a bill to allow Missourians to finally be able to conceal-carry (with appropriate permits and licenses.) From the AP:

Republican state Sen. Jon Dolan, an Army public affairs officer, cast the deciding vote Thursday after being granted a last-minute request for military leave from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Senate's 23-10 vote to override the veto just barely met the required two-thirds majority. The House voted 115-43 Wednesday to override the Democratic governor's veto.

Missouri becomes the 45th state to allow concealed guns in some fashion, although nine sharply restrict permits, according to the National Rifle Association.

I had discussed this last Thursday and my chief concern was that if folks had to apply to their county sheriffs, how much "discretion" was involved? As best as I can now tell -- none. Once the requirements by the applicant are met (and there are quite a few) then the law says that sheriffs "shall issue" meaning they can't refuse someone just because they don't like them or their type. That's as it should be.

Here's more from the L.A. Times:

The issue has divided Missouri for years. Rural residents across the state's expanse of farms and forests overwhelmingly support concealed guns, but urban voters in Kansas City and St. Louis have fought against them at every turn.

Earlier this year, Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, vetoed the latest concealed-carry proposal. But the Republican-dominated Legislature overrode the veto this week - the House on Wednesday and the Senate on Thursday.

Isn't that interesting? The urban areas of Missouri, where we have to presume that crime is the highest, are -- because of the liberal bent of the populations there -- the very ones that don't want the ability to defend themselves and protect their loved ones. That's the strange contradiction in the whole gun control debate. Folks living in the war zones around the country (cities such as New York, Chicago, Washington D.C.) refuse to fight back.

Speaking of fighting back, earlier this week I mentioned that Democrats in Missouri were challenging the legislature vote of Republican state Sen. Jon Dolan. From the Kansas City Star:

...But Democrats said Dolan, a Lake St. Louis Republican, had gotten special treatment in getting six days of leave from his post in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that he had flouted military rules by acting as a politician while on active duty.

They also said it was ironic Dolan would return on the second anniversary of Sept. 11, saying he should be at his post fighting terrorism.

Because of questions raised by the liberal press at the urging of the beaten Democrats, the Navy examined the circumstances and cleared Dolan and his commanders of any funny business. But you knew it would happen. Liberal Democrats cannot admit defeat when they lose any vote. I suspect this challenge isn't over yet...

Onward! It's no surprise that the New York Times is incapable of reporting on guns in an unbiased way. But there was a time when the New York Daily News was because it represented the interests of the average "blue-collar" worker. Those days are long-gone. While I sometimes get carried away with my rants in other posts on Alphecca, I try to restrain myself during this Weekly Check on the Bias report because it tends to draw a lot of readers. So let me just say, "serenity now... serenity now..."

Why? Because of this inane editorial in the N.Y. Daily News by Eva S. Moskowitz, Manhatten City Councilerwoman. Here's a quote:

This spring, I introduced legislation in the City Council that would make the manufacturer and seller of a gun strictly liable for any injuries and deaths caused by the gun, regardless of whether it is defective.

Many have asked why a maker or seller of a gun should be held liable if it isn't defective. Why not go after the criminals instead? To this day, that rationalization has been the gun lobby's most successful argument to the American people.

Think about that! She admits her legislation would target gun makers even if the gun wasn't defective. And she seems to wonder why the courts and juries have found for the defendents (the gun manufacturers) when confronted with the logic of punishing the criminals instead. According to her:

Sadly, the answer has been provided to us with the murder of my colleague Brooklyn Councilman James Davis. If an armed, retired police officer at the seat of city government could not be protected from gun violence, how can we hope to protect ordinary citizens?

It is inevitable that deadly weapons will fall into the wrong hands if manufacturers continue to flood this country with guns. The cost to our society is enormous, both in the loss of life and the financial impact. The cost of treating a single gunshot injury can exceed $100 million. If manufacturers and dealers of firearms are to profit from selling lethal products, they also should bear the economic costs that are imposed on their victims.

First of all, gun makers are not "flooding the country with guns." Almost all of the manufacturers sell their legally made products through licensed distributors who in turn sell them to licensed gun dealers. And I've got news for Moskowitz and her ilk: Nobody ships on approval! The dealer has to request -- place an order -- and that is what is shipped. Nothing else. She makes it sound as if Colt or Smith & Wesson are just leaving boxes of guns lying around back-alleys and bus stops. That ain't how it works.

As for a gunshot injury costing $100 million? What HMO is she using? What utter bull.

Then she says the manufacturers "sell a lethal product" and should be held liable for the economic costs "imposed on their victims." Earth to Eva, it's not the gun maker's victims, it's the mutant criminal's victims! And by the way -- automobiles "kill" 45 thousand people a year. Should Ford or Toyota be held liable for the mis-use by drunks, etc., of their products?

Here's another quote:

Right now, gun manufacturers have no incentive to limit the plague they have unleashed upon American society...

Honey, the "plague" is a result of liberals like you excusing the actions of criminals, not passing tough sentencing laws, and supporting judges who impose minimum (if any) jail time on the thugs and defectives who continue to stalk our streets despite multiple convictions for violent crimes.

I could go on fisking this piece but there are only so many hours in the day...

Turning to a couple of articles from other sources...

From yesterday's Washington Post:

Several Democratic elected officials in Maryland, including two leading contenders for governor in 2006, called yesterday for a ban on military-style assault weapons as part of a campaign that could force Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) into a legislative battle over gun control.

Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley -- Ehrlich's chief rivals in state politics -- joined a handful of state lawmakers and activists at separate news conferences yesterday in urging passage of a bill that would outlaw the sale or transfer of 45 models of assault rifles and shotguns that are currently legal to sell in Maryland.

Haven't they (Democrats, Maryland, the Washington Post, et al) learned yet that this is a losing issue? The question of course is whether Gov. Ehrlich Jr. has the backbone to stand up to and veto this bill. And for the umpteenth time: Any object -- a knife, baseball bat, tire-iron -- can be an "assault" weapon when used for criminal purposes. I feel such sorrow for the law-abiding, decent folks in Maryland.

Now here's something to ponder. Remember that old slogan? "God made all men, Colt made them equal?" Well, how is a small-ish ordinary person supposed to protect themselves if even big burly football players feel the need to carry? Via Keep And Bear Arms comes this story from the Miami Herald:

They have them for hunting, for protection and as a hobby. The Dolphins, presumably like all NFL teams and all sports teams for that matter, are armed. Defensive end Jay Williams estimated 40 to 60 percent of football players own guns. He also estimated he is one of the few with a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

"I don't believe in an athlete having a gun and not knowing how to use it, or not going through the proper channels of having it," Williams said.

The article isn't nearly as "pro-gun" as that quote makes it sound. In fact, it raises some cliche issues that are just plain silly. Anyway, here's more:

He called himself a "gun enthusiast," but Williams also described himself as a target, not an uncommon feeling among professional athletes who can be preyed upon - even if it doesn't involve guns - by their own agents and relatives, let alone strangers.

"Anybody who is making money is a target," Williams said. "There's people out there who don't want to work hard to get what I have. They'd rather go out there and get it easy. Whether you're an athlete or a rich businessman, people want to steal what you have."

So Williams practices his shooting with a dedication similar to the one he has for practicing his football. He goes to gun ranges. He works on reacting to situations that could occur at night as his family sleeps. He prepares for sneak attacks, such as drive-by shootings, by taking the ammunition out of his gun and gauging his reflex response.

"My wife will tell you I work on it," Williams said. "I'm prepared if somebody comes up on me."

I like this guy! Good thinking on his part.

Well anyway, that's enough blabbing for one week. Remember that there's a new blog in town dedicated to the "hows" of shooting sports, defense, and all things guns -- just without all the politics.

The Shooter's Carnival is a serious attempt to bring as much information as possible into one spot in the blogosphere about gun ownership, the responsibilities that go with that, and most importantly, the fun and enjoyment that derives from it. Archives are divided into categories such as beginner, intermediate, advanced, safety, maintenance, legal issues, etc.

The founders include:

Boone Country, Hell in a Handbasket, Lay Lines, Publicola, SayUncle, The Smallest Minority, Stop the Bleating, ...and yours truly...me!

Submissions are welcome and instructions on "how to" are on the blog. It's just starting up so check it out. There is much more to come there so stay tuned and make sure you bookmark or blogroll it!

Hey, I'm a part of it so I'll plug it now and then...

Anyway, see you all soon. Thanks for stopping by!

Via the always great read Robert Prather I discovered that Right Wing News has a fascinating interview with Milton Friedman. There's plenty more at RWN too so browse the whole blog. I've added it to my "interesting links."

---

The Les Jones Blog has a series of gun-related posts up. So just head on over there and start reading and scrolling...

---

The Flea is not impressed with the Toronto Film Festival and the folks who attend it. The only film festival around my parts is the local drive-in. Two relatively old movies for $5.00 each night.

---

Lana over at Live From the Guillotine discusses the lack of civility in today's world. This is something I've harped on quite a bit. And there's a reason why I link to Judith Martin.

---

Some of you will notice that I didn't have my Monday Mentions yesterday. Too much stress in my life right now but it will return next week. By the way, for those regular readers who haven't already made a donation to my little blog here -- this would be a really good time to help me out if you catch my drift...

See you all tomorrow morning with my Weekly Check on the Bias.

So I have a rare day off. I said I wouldn't blog much yet here I am. I have a pile of things (such as laundry) to do but I'm blowing them off. I should be getting my stuff together for the lawyer but I'm not. I have observed Rainbow and she seems alright but I just don't know. I'm supposed to be preparing my next post (about handgun ballistics) to put up on the Shooters' Carnival but I'm stalling half-way through it. I should be et cetera... But like a moth to flame, blogging calls me. It's one of the few things in my life that give me real pleasure. And it spares me from facing my life and obligations.

One of the complaints that I have with myself is that I don't open up about ME as much as many bloggers do on their blogs. Oh sure, occasionally I mention myself in a self-deprecating fashion, talk about my psychic experiences, my cats... And of course, there's my just revised biography page. But I don't have the moxie to really discuss everything going on in my life the way one of my favorites (because of this quality) does, Acidman. It took all I had to admit a few posts ago that I really am, no-bull, pro-life. And while I've made joking references to it in the past, I rarely discuss my loneliness in not having someone special in my life. Yes, I have lots of friends, but not that friend. It's been so long that I'm not sure I could even deal with a lover...

Indeed, I'm so afraid of taking a few days off from blogging for fear that half of my audience will never come back that I feel compelled to just keep going... Or if I talk about my self too much, the same...

How to hit that balance is what I'm striving to figure out here.

I like my job and the folks I work with and for. I don't mention them by name -- indeed, I only vaguely refer to them by industry. But I work for a gay-owned, gay operated (mostly) high-end furniture company. Here's how cool they really are: Not only are they almost all "screaming" liberals, but they know about and support my website and have actually -- repeatedly -- offered to host it at absolutely no cost to me (in order to cut down my expenses) irregardless of content (which they do read.) Pretty fucking cool, huh? Sorry, I cursed and I'm trying to avoid that... And the http wouldn't even have their name -- they will just have my domain-name pointed to a seperate part of one of their (numerous) servers. FYI, the company is it's own host with the website connected by a T1 which cost them a fortune to install in this very rural area.

Everyone in this company is slightly nuts and that's a perfect match for me 'cause I'm somewhat nuts too. I have a pretty steady work history, I don't move around much. I tend to spend 7-10 years at each employer and the only reason I left my longest-term employer was to move back to Vermont. I've been with my current company for almost seven years and I don't forsee myself moving again. Like all "durable goods" companies, they are struggling but our solid-hardwood contemporary furniture is superb and the company will survive this economic condition. I hope to continue to be a part of that.

I live in rentals. Over the last 26 years I've lived in just two! I don't like to move much. I've been in my present one for 11 years... My previous landlord/owner liked me so much (I'm quiet, don't have parties or blast music, pay my rent almost on time...) never even raised my rent for the first 7 years. He wanted me to stay...

I am part of a most loving family. They deserve much better than me. Thank God they don't send me away. I love them and I wish we all lived close-by each other. But I'm agoraphophobic and don't want to leave the beautiful spot I live in.

As long as I'm revealing stuff about my self (think of this as the type of thing other bloggers do when they have their "50 things about me" posts.)

I've had a pretty healthy life, in terms of things (diseases) that could kill me. Yes, my 30 years of smoking are catching up with me but... But I've spent more than half of my life with conditions that all seem to involve pinched or distressed nerves. I've suffered from sciatica for more years than I can count. The brutal type that results from a slipped disk in my lower back and an excruciating pain results in my right leg. For weeks, I can't even sleep because there is NO position I can assume that lessens it. There are no pain killers from doctors that turn it off other than by making me sleepy-enough to... uh, sleep.

AND... I'm about 45-years-old and have suffered from "Cluster Headaches" since I was 24. There's no point in my trying to describe these (several times a day) headaches other than that some people kill themselves because of them. That's not an option for me -- I have dependents (fine, so they're just cats...) to take care of.

Lastly, I have GOUT. "The disease of aristocrats." Right. Let me tell you something... Gout absolutely sucks. And I have to watch my diet inspite of the help Allopurinal provides.

Some other things some of you might like to know about me:

1. My favorite guitar players are Roy Buchanan, Jimi Hendrix, Jimmy Page, and Joe Satriani. The first two are dead and NOBODY will ever be able to do what Roy did.
   


2. My favorite fast-food is McDonald's and what's left of Boston Chicken. KFC and Wendy's are pretty good too. Jack-in-the-Box is no longer out here on the East coast but they were great too.
   


3. My teeth might rebel but ice-cream is the best substance in the world.
   


4. Animals I love and think should be protected at all costs or laws: Dogs, Cats, Otters, Dolphins, Whales.
   


5. Animals I like a lot, think are smart or should be protected in some way: Wolves, foxes, all Hawks and Eagles and Owls. Also Elephants. And even though I hate insects and especially bees -- Bumble Bees and Borer (Carpenter) Bees are cool. Honey Bee's... I don't know. I really like Moths. Especially the big-ass ones who don't even move when you touch them while they're hanging out on your screen-door by the light at night. I'm sure there are others but I can't think of them right now.
   


6. All others are just food sources.
   


7. The only vegetables I "approve of" are: Broccoli, Asparagus, Tomatos, and I suppose, Iceberg Lettuce. Everything else is just gross...
   


8. I like peanut-butter. And breakfast at McDonald's. My favorites are a Sausage McMuffin with Egg and a Sausage Bisquit with Egg. Simply the best way to start the morning...
   


9. I don't know... I'm not good at this stuff, I never do it. I'm sure I could come up with a ton more but I'm frozen here. I'm trying to open up but I don't know how...
   

Anyway, I'll try to reveal more about myself in the future so you get a sense of me. I know that Alphecca is a weird combination of opinions ad comment and reporting. Please stick with me here...

I'm taking baby-steps in opening myself up to you...

---

Update 9/17:

A couple of my good friend bloggers have commented on this post in their fine blogs.

My buddy Michael at Discount Blogger decided to reveal some of his life as well.

And my friend Jay Solo, (the OTHER hyper-active blogger) has also chimed in... with his comments.

Thanks to both of you for your kind words.

You know... (Well, you don't know because I rarely discuss my family here but) a couple members of my family have battled cancer recently. Maybe that's one reason I've been discussing mortality lately.

After writing the last post, I lay down on the couch and discovered that my eldest cat (19 1/2 years old) was incontinent again -- the second time (that I know of) this week. I don't know if it is just a bladder infection or what. No, I didn't say anything to her other than to pet her and ask if everything was alright... I know she can't last much longer. I'll set up another litterbox on this floor. I'll carry her around if I have to. I hope this is nothing bad, or a sign of the end. I want her (as with my real family members) with me forever.

I suspect that blogging will be light at best the next few days. It might sound horribly morbid but I wish we could all just go QUICK with a heart attack or something. It's the deterioration and progression of disease that sucks so much. See you soon.

There, that got your attention... As my bloggoversary (or however it's spelled) approaches, I've been reading through my archives. Here's something I wrote near the beginning, when I was receiving about 25 visitors a day. They were precious to me and while now that number regularly exceeds 800, you all are still precious to me. I thought you might like to read something I wrote back then.

So, what is it about guns?

In today's Washington Post, Donna Britt has a commentary where she tries, in anguish, to understand the allure of guns in the violent society she lives in. And I believe this is an honest piece and I believe she would like to know just what it is that compels so many of us to be gun owners. Here are some excerpts:

Because I don't get it. It seems that neither anti-American zealotry nor drool-inducing madness spurred this cruelty. Our fantasy of an uncommonly bright and organized villain has evaporated before images of a thieving wife-threatener who appears to have held a teenager -- and the world -- in his thrall.

Could an unremarkable thug become this?

My bewilderment took me to a store I'd passed dozens of times but never visited, an establishment just four blocks from where Lori Lewis Rivera was shot dead while vacuuming her minivan.

At Potomac Trading Collectibles, I found knives, dueling pistols, ammunition and rifles lined up against the walls like soldiers at attention.

And I found two very pleasant men who earn their livings selling firearms.

But her Op-Ed is not condescending, I think she really wants to understand. She further says:

I visited the store because I hated guns -- and had no idea why others love them.

Now, I would never confuse millions of law-abiding gun owners with brutes who'd mow down innocents at gas pumps. But as an urban girl too familiar with gun-related agonies, I find hunting distasteful, the NRA's bullying disgusting and the entertainment media's gun-lust outrageous.

I wanted Printz (one of the store owners) to show me the weapon that stole 10 decent lives. And perhaps to help me comprehend why some will never blame guns for their absence.

Well. I don't pretend to be a very smart person. I'm not a lawyer. I won't claim that any of my commentaries in Alphecca.com contain inspired insights or "never before thought of ideas." I can only speak for myself.

I was introduced to guns when I was a boy at Summer camp. Simple 22 caliber bolt action rifles. Target shooting was fun. A challenge. It was the sixties and the cold-war was chillier then hell and this state-run Summer camp, like the Boy Scouts and so many schools, thought it was important to start kids on the road to being able to defend The United States. This was sandwiched between climbing under the desks as the black shades were pulled down.

Of course, most of this was unspoken. We were handed guns, taught (at least at this camp) the full N.R.A. safety program on safe gun handling (I went through it four Summers,) and told to have fun. We did. Riflery was EVERYONES favorite activity. As we got older, our American History classes (which in those days didn't blame America for every evil in the world) taught us that these magical inventions had liberated the United States from the tyranny of England, had protected us from invasion by other nations, and that possession was a fundamental right according to The Constitution. Indeed, in most State Constitutions, possession was a duty in order to protect The State.

Now, those were different times. Violence, at least violence that could result in life-threatening physical harm and death, was a rarity even in urban areas. Not unknown, just much rarer then now. But as I grew up, so did the threat I confronted from others, my fellow Americans. Where once upon a time, a thief would simply rob you, now he would kill you and then rob you. Where once upon a time, men could argue and fight until one was on the ground with a bloodied nose, now all arguments are fought to the death.

I'm not going to go into the role of TV and Media here; that's for another time. I'm also not going to go into the sport of guns, or the food-gathering aspects (hunting) of guns. All of that is also for another time.

I want to address the typical urban dweller who owns a firearm for self-defense. So... I will just say that the stakes are much higher now. There are people out there who want what you have and are willing to kill you for it. There are people out there who hate you and will kill you for it. There are people out there for whom only your (my) death will satisfy them. No matter where you live, there is always an implied danger. It has become a part of our everyday lives.

A simple explanation offered by "liberals" is that the prevalence of firearms has contributed to this. But it hasn't. The number of guns per capita, that is, the ratio of gun-owners in the population has actually gone down over the last 100 years. And, as most of us know, the amount of regulations and restrictions (that's gun-control for the un-initiate) has gone up. Yet deadly violence has continued to escalate. I mentioned this in a previous posting and I will again now. Every animal, every organism, every plant, every man and woman has several fundamental imperitives: To eat, to procreate, and to defend itself. No thinking person would ever begrudge an animal for using every tool, whether teeth or claws, to defend it's life and it's children or family. And most animals have such defenses. Sharp claws and teeth. Even plants, through evolution, develope some very efficient defenses.

Mankind has no such defenses. He must rely on tools. Stones, spears, arrows, and finally, firearms. The things we admire most about humans are their compassion, their caring, their child-rearing abilities, the close family and community units they have developed. Yet then we feel repelled when they (we actually) respond in that most innate response to danger and threat to ourselves and loved-ones. Why? Why is it now wrong for a human being to defend himself from danger?

Because "The State" will protect us? Has it? From thieves and junkies and car-jackers and rapists and... Who has "The State" protected us from? External National threats, yes. Fine. And that, to my reading of the Constitution of The United States should be the ONLY defense they should be responsible for. For the common defense. But what about the personal? The invader of your home and the immediate threat to your family? That, the State is useless, powerless, impotent to help you with. All they can do is respond AFTER the fact and try to clean-up and solve. Cops are fine, but always after the fact.

Every tool. A gun is a magical thing. Small but heavy. Marvelously efficient at helping you to defend yourself. To protect your home and family.

I believe the quote is something such as, "God made all men, Colt made them equal."

Every tool. In fact, for most of us, the only tool available to us. It is our right. A God given impetus built into our genetic makeup; to protect ourselves and loved-ones. For almost all of us, that small tool, the gun is the only thing we have at our disposal. And so, that small piece of steel is a comfort, a balm, an antidote to the nervousness and fear that all of us live with to some extent but keep submerged so we can go about our daily lives. It is the only thing we have available to re-assure ourselves that if the un-thinkable happens, we can react as we are designed to, that we can do our duty to our imperative to protect and defend. In many ways, the gun does more then any anti-anxiety pill ever could.

And like any precious tool, we love it, hopefully with respect and awe. It is necessary. You don't have to use it, you hope you never have to use it, but it's comforting to know it's there. (Almost sounds like the slogan for a newspaper.) Here's a news flash: I'm gay. And I've been hit with tire-chains, beat-up, and had a knife stuck in me multiple times, all because people hate me, because I'm gay. I used to fear going out of my home. I used to fear leaving a gay-bar late at night, I used to fear hearing someone breaking the glass on my door to break-in. Now, through the simple comfort of having the right tool at hand, or in pocket, or on the night-stand, I NO LONGER HAVE ANY OF THOSE FEARS. And friends, that is worth a hundred times what I paid for that revolver. It is a tool I have not had to use, but I am comforted to know it is there and ready. And I will use it if I have to. Something within me compels me to protect myself. Something compels all of us to protect ourselves.

Do I love my gun? Not like I love pizza, or my family. But I do love the security it provides me. The feeling that in a huge world frought with danger -- not of my making-- I still have control over my own security and destiny. That if I lose my possessions it won't be because I hid in fear. That if I lose my life it won't be because some mutant took it from me without a fight. That if someone threatens my loved ones I can put up a defense as ferocious as that of any animal in this jungle called Earth. Yes, guns have been and will be used for terrible actions, but many more un-documented times, un-reported by the media, the gun will be used to fulfill one of the ultimate imperatives of mankind; protection.

Those were my thoughts back then and they -- also -- still stand. I've done a lot of blogging today and I think I'll end it here. See you all soon. Thanks for stopping by!

Chez at On General Principle takes on author Tom Clancy in this post. On accuracy of his research. He doesn't think much of Clancy's latest book, Red Rabbit.

---

Meanwhile, Adam Groves is defending the RIAA prosecutions and he makes some valid points!

---

Spoons is exactly right. Bravo, maestro!

And NOW I'm in a ranty mood... So I'll just remind everyone that this is mainly a blog about me, my thoughts, and at least a lot of the time, bias in the media regarding reporting on guns and the rights surrounding them.

So I tend to avoid issues about sexuality (I had a slight detour during that last post) and religion and abortion. But I'm sure that most of you disagree with me about some of these issues, especially abortion. I've discussed it in the past and won't go into much about it now except to remind you that I am in fact "pro-life" and that the woman with no name at One Little Victory and I see eye-to-eye on this issue. The archive doesn't include the photo so just scroll down to "It's just parasitic tissue, right?" Enough! Don't bother emailing me because this is another issue I won't budge on.

Let me just say this (he elaborates as a warning...) about that -- I suppose I could tolerate an abortion if performed during the first trimester. I wouldn't like it, but I would accept it as a compromise between opposition forces.

But once there is even a hint of the nervous system developed, then NO! At that point the baby (fetus for those of you who disagree) has a sense of feeling. It responds to stimulus (you feel it "kicking" in your stomach) and as you now know, it can smile and cry in the womb and certainly -- you would have to admit -- would certainly know and feel it's death by tongs. I firmly and absolutely believe that third-trimester abortions (late term abortions to you) are murder. The child knows it is being killed. At the very least it can certainly sense it's death. This is the same child that expectant parents aim stereo speakers towards so the "fetus" would develope while hearing music. End of discussion. I had to say this. But Alphecca is concerned with gun rights so I'm not going to turn this over to abortion. I'm against it. The last time I brought up this issue, three blogs "de-linked" me. I hope that won't happen this time. We'll just have to agree to disagree about this.

Once again -- I get side-tracked... I'll never get through this "cruise."

You know what's weird? Every Friday night I post that I'm going to take the weekend off and almost every Sunday I give in to my impulses and do a pile of postings. I am a failure at trying to relax and take time off.

Eric Scheie discusses so many different things I don't know where to begin. Okay, how about this discussion about gender definitions and who, really, cares... The comments are most telling -- that most of the men arrested in parks for lewd conduct with other men are...er...married. The starting point for this post of Eric's (his blog, Classical Values) was this post by another friend of Alphecca, Steven at Up With Beauty.

My blogson Eric also get's embroiled in a conflict with another blogger (who I just discovered dissed me as well but never emailed me to let me know) about gun statistics and John R. Lott and the controversy over his methodology. Go give Eric some support. As for me -- the blogger in question is as anti-gun biased (he's from Australia -- say no more) as I am pro-gun. I suppose we could hurl suspect statistics back-and-forth till the cows come home and neither of us will convince the other. His name is Tim Lambert and he says this about me:

...I think that it is unfortunate that even though he knows Lott's statisitics are suspect, Soyer bases an argument on them.

This was based on my post from a couple weeks ago about John R. Lott's editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times. He (Tim Lambert) rightly points out that I had noted the controversy surrounding some of Lott's methodology. Here's what I said:

Exactly. I know there has been some minor controversy about his statistics of late but even if we cut in-half his pro-gun figures, it still has to give you pause. And NO ONE is suggesting that he is even NEARLY that far off. Further more, the statistics hurled about by the anti-gun crowd are even more suspect by all scholars. I suppose, as we all know, that's the problem with surveys and statistics. Anyway...

What Lambert leaves out is the rest of that paragraph! Here's what followed from me in that post:

...Anyway... This is much more meaningful for what I report about here -- I love this next quote the best:

During 2001, the morning and evening national news broadcasts on the three main television networks carried almost 190,000 words on gun crimes. Not one single segment featured a civilian using a gun to stop a crime. Newspapers were not much better.

And anyone who watches the morning or evening news knows absolutely that this is true. So don't tell me there's no bias against ownership of guns in the dominant, liberal media!

That was the point of the whole post! That was the conclusion of it, the wrap-up. Alphecca isn't about statistics but about bias. Lambert ignored that. Incidentally, Lambert wrote his post on Sept. 6th so I guess he ignored another post of mine about the same editorial during one of my weekly reports criticizing the timing and intent of that same editorial.

By the way, he loves to quote Donahue and his survey that contradicts Lott. I addressed all of this in this post from last January. Here is a quote from ME:

I wish I had more time to rant about this but I have to head off to work shortly. Maybe someone else can pinch-hit for me. A couple of new anti-gun articles appeared on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page, reporting on a just released study by Stanford University law professor John Donohue. From L.A. Times writer Aparna Kumar, here's the story and a quote:

The findings, by Stanford University law professor John Donohue, contradict an influential study by economist John R. Lott Jr., a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who in 1997 concluded that by adopting such laws, states can substantially curb violent crime.

Since the late 1970s, 33 states -- California is not among them -- have enacted "shall-issue" or "right-to-carry" laws, which require law enforcement authorities to issue handgun permits to qualified applicants. Among the states are Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah and Nevada.

But social scientists, represented on opposing sides by Donohue and Lott, remain stubbornly divided over the effect of such laws on crime rates. "If somebody had to say which way is the evidence stronger, I'd say that it's probably stronger that the laws are increasing crime, rather than decreasing crime," Donohue said Wednesday in an interview. "But the stronger thing I could say is that I don't see any strong evidence that they are reducing crime."

Here's the other article from Robert Crowe of The Houston Chronicle, which relates more directly to the effects in Texas

Anyway, I've always said that you can make statistics show anything you want to. John Lott's findings are widely respected (even if loathed by liberals) and you just knew someone would try to twist things to show a contrary position. Folks can hurl statistics at each other till the cows come home but I refuse to give up my guns and right to carry. If someone wants to attack me, I will put up a fight.

In the meantime, it might be revealing to look at another of anti-gun John Donohue's "studies." In 1999, he co-authored a repulsive study linking increased abortions to dropping crime-rates. From the Detroit Free Press:

CHICAGO -- Two scholars studying the causes of the declining U.S. crime rate have reached a provocative conclusion: Legalizing abortion in the early 1970s eliminated many of the potential criminals of the 1990s.

The research, which has been circulating among economists and criminal-law experts, suggests those who would have been at greatest risk of criminal activity during the peak crime years of young adulthood -- the unwanted offspring of teenage and poor women -- were aborted at disproportionately high rates more than two decades ago.

Steven Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, and John Donohue III, a Stanford University Law School professor, conclude that legalized abortion may explain as much as half of the overall crime reduction the nation experienced from 1991 to 1997.

Yes, let's just kill minority children so they don't grow up to become criminals. I'm running out of time here -- I really have to get ready for work -- but most regulars know I lean toward the Pro-Life position. Not foaming at the mouth, but certainly I consider abortion disgusting considering how inexpensive birth-control is these days. Anyway, Angela Franz of NRLC says it all here:

There are several problems with the Levitt-Donohue study. First of all, their study only demonstrates that lower crime rates chronologically followed high abortion rates, not that high abortion rates caused the lower crime rates. In logic, this fallacy is known as the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, which means that they assume that, since x happened after y, therefore x happened because of y.

Despite their protestations of neutrality, by singling out the abortion rate among poor and minority women instead of focusing on much more likely scenarios such as changes in economic prosperity within society as a whole or on changes in urban law- enforcement techniques, Levitt and Donohue reveal themselves to be deeply committed to the pro-abortion ideology.

Second, Levitt and Donohue are perhaps ignorant of the dangerously flawed historical pedigree of their "provocative" ideas. Similar "provocative" thoughts were offered back in 1925, when eugenicist and Chicago Municipal Court Judge Harry Olson said, "Crime prevention, finally, is seen to be the weeding out of defective stocks."

Judge Olson advocated not abortion but forced sterilization for those "defective" types. Not coincidentally, Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), invited Olson to participate in her 1923 Middle Western States Birth Control Conference, during which the reduction of " delinquency" (that is, the propensity to commit crimes) would be discussed.

By the 1930s, German legal and medical journals were full of " evidence" that linked the reproduction of certain kinds of people to greater crime. In 1935 Nazi medical leader Gerhard Wagner claimed that criminality was higher among Jews than non-Jews, a " fact" that helped to justify the systematic extermination of Jews.

The Levitt-Donohue study and such eugenic "findings" share several common characteristics. First, there is the predisposition to label certain classes of people - - not surprisingly, the most marginalized and powerless classes - - as predetermined, whether genetically or environmentally, to committing crimes, an approach that would lead naturally to the conclusion that those classes of people really ought not to reproduce their kind.

Second, both the Levitt-Donohue study and other eugenic "findings" are a prime example of bad science being used in the service of a lethally racist ideology. Levitt himself acknowledges that the study does not provide the kind of "certainty that, say, a scientist might want."

Exactly. So now we know a bit more about John Donohue. And how his methodology works. So in regards to his latest study claiming that law-abiding citizens owning guns leads to more crime... No thanks, I'll throw my lot in with Lott.

I've now quoted myself stating several times that the problem with statistics is that ALL of them are suspect no matter whom they come from. That's why I tend to base my posts on the arguments instead. Lambert has dedicated his life to discrediting Lott, and maybe there is some discreditting to do there. But to base it all on statistics and methodology is foolish and as Eric Scheie correctly points out, the Second Amendment doesn't need statistics to justify it's adherence. The words of the founding fathers will suffice. If you don't approve of them or agree with them then you must have a constitutional convention or pass a constitutional amendment.

Here's what I said last December:

And I can hear the whining from the left-bank now. The Second Amendment referred to "well regulated militias..." bla-bla-bla... and "they couldn't forsee the weapons available today..." bla-bla-bla... "the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean individuals can carry firearms..." bla-bla-bla.

OK. Fair enough. And the First Amendment referred to freedom of the press and couldn't have forseen the advent of Movies, TV, Radio, and the Internet -- therefore freedom of the press shouldn't be extended to them. Right? What's that I hear you Liberal Democrats blathering? And remember, it's not just criminals we need to be able to defend against. Our Constitution made very clear that if the government becomes oppressive, there are remedies.

One way legitimate historians judge historic times is not only by the text in question (oh gosh, let's just say "The Bill Of Rights") but by examining con-current, that is (what I call) collateral writings of the period. Let's take a look at some quotes from the framers of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights and see what was on their minds while drafting the founding documents that form the foundation of our great nation.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun.
--Patrick Henry

And:

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--Thomas Jefferson

And:

The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their arms.
--Sam Adams

And:

Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.
--James Madison

And:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.
--George Washington

And for you Liberals who still don't get it:

...A well regulated militia is composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property as individuals, and their right as freemen.
--Josiah Quincy Jr.

What else can I say? They -our founding fathers- have clearly, without ambiguity spelled out their feelings on the citizens of this country bearing arms. They say it is not only a right, but an obligation -a duty- to preserving freedom.

Are there abuses? Are there crimes committed by those possessing firearms? Of course. But just as we wouldn't discard the 1st Amendment because a few use it to propogate pornography or some such thing, so we cannot, must not eliminate or restrict the 2nd Amendment because a few mis-use the very tool that has guaranteed our nation's freedom. Our nation's laws, our freedoms, our priviledges -and in the case of owning firearms- our rights must not be limited or restricted by the government in response to the actions of a few miscreants.

On the contrary, our right to own firearms (at least in those states that still recognize that we have a Constitution) has kept the criminal element in check, and insured that while outside forces, hostile countries may find unique ways of attacking us, they can never just land on our shores and subjugate us into submission.

---

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

I stand my ground about all that I said there. Hopefully I got all of my HTML tags straight! Anyway, I hope you all feel free to quote me!

---

Update 9/15 PM. Lambert responds on his blog by stating:

...He can't find anything wrong with Donohue's work on concealed carry, so he turns to Donohue's work with Steve Levitt that found evidence that legalized abortion led to large decreases in crime by reducing the number of unwanted children, children who were more likely to be neglected and grow into criminals...

If someone has shown sick tendencies supporting eugenics in their past work, then I say that should have a bearing on how one views their current work. If past works are suspect, I think that makes a very large statement on how much veracity we assign to their present ones. Obviously Lambert disagrees. The fact that one of the sources I quote imply that Donahue endorses Nazi solutions leads him to, I presume, his final comment accusing me of using Nazi tactics. His Godwin's Law comment is typical of all the leftist-liberals who also compare George Bush to being equal to Hitler. So I suppose this whole discussion has degenerated into not much of anything. Oh well.

Like the whiny little babies they are, Democrats seem unable to admit defeat in any circumstance. They still can't admit defeat in the 2000 presidential election. They can't admit that Frank Lautenberg had no legal basis for running for Senator in N.J. They claim that Republicans are stealing the California governorship. How pathetic.

Last week I posted about the concealed carry law being passed in Missouri over the veto of the governor. The deciding vote by (Rep.) Maj. Jon Dolan (really just one of the votes since they all decided the issue) came from a state legislater on valid leave from active service. From the Kansas City Star:

But Democrats said Dolan, a Lake St. Louis Republican, had gotten special treatment in getting six days of leave from his post in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that he had flouted military rules by acting as a politician while on active duty.

They also said it was ironic Dolan would return on the second anniversary of Sept. 11, saying he should be at his post fighting terrorism.

This is what the Democratic Party has come to. They can't win the votes so they just keep sniping from the peanut-gallery and making themselves look like sore-losers. But for all their trite accusations:

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Barbara Burfeind, a Department of Defense press officer, said her office in Washington had spoken with officials in Guantanamo Bay after inquiries by reporters. She said Dolan's leave was granted on a special exception, but requests for such exceptions are not uncommon.

"There's always exceptions to policy," Burfeind said. "Major Dolan was granted an exception to policy based on they had enough staffing that they could let him go for six days. His special circumstances were taken into account."

So there. Seriously, Republicans can act just as stupid sometimes and that's why I consider myself a small "L" libertarian Independent. But at least the Republicans act like adults some of the time. Democrats never do. This is probably why as people finally get older and grow-up, they switch from the liberal Democrats and start voting for the moderate or conservative Republicans. It's a maturing process.

How much do you want to bet that Democrats in Missouri try to start an investigation or lawsuit over this silliness?

From today's Washington Times:

Single-sex education is taking public school students to a new level, providing them with a greater variety of academic opportunities. More importantly, studies show that single-sex education vastly improves students' reading scores, their overall grades and their acceptance into college.

And:

However, the opposite is true. Single-sex education helps break down gender stereotypes by giving students greater freedom in taking a wider variety of classes. Says psychologist and NASSPE founder Leonard Sax, "girls who attend single sex schools are more likely to take courses in computer science and physics," while boys "are more likely to study non-gender-traditional subjects such as art, music, dance, drama and culinary arts."

So if -- according to this editorial -- it's good for students to learn in a segregated school where they can be only with their own "types" than I suppose The Washington Times would also endorse the "gay" Harvey Milk high school in N.Y.C... Oddly, they've been silent on that.

During last week's Gun Bias Report I mentioned that the pro-gun forces represented on the Yahoo gun-debate message board should try to elevate the arguments used and the discussion. I said:

...we, as supporters of the original meaning -- unadulterated intention -- of the Second Amendment have a responsibility to ignore taunts from the liberal (i.e. anti-gun) factions and if we do respond, we must do so with a cool head, with logic, with facts, and with responsibility.

I received a response from one of the message posters (there only seem to be about 15 or so regulars) that was reasoned and corrected an error of mine. His name is Tommygun and I thanked him and put his comments up at the end of that post.

Now I've gotten another email last night from one of the other regular posters there:

Hey shitstain!

I'm the guy you quoted in your rant about yahoo gun control. I don't see you in the trenches fighting the fight. You sit on your fat ass in front of your computer ranting away to people that can't fight back while I'm on the front lines day after day after day with a few other jungle fighters.

I DARE you to come and post on the message boards for a week and if you can still maintain your moral superiority after dealing with assholes like Odins farce and idiotindaboonies, then we can talk.

I started out with high ideals but after fighting these clowns and idiots for over 5 years, I got worn down and I don't fight "British" style anymore. I have become a Davey Crockett style bush fighter. I'm not afraid to get in the pen with the pigs. You can't fight the pigs while sitting on a high horse.

So until I see you in the trenches, SHUT THE FUCK UP and take your holier than thou attitude and cram it.

Piss off you fucking coward!!!

--Red Foreman

Kinda' proves my point for me, huh? If you're arguments are reduced to cursing you won't sway anyone. And given the level of some of the discourse there, I wonder how many folks sitting on the fence about the issue of the Second Amendment would spend much time reading that message board much less be convinced of the veracity of either side's position?

Alphecca has developed a pretty hefty readership -- not by Yahoo standards but probably larger than what that specific Yahoo message board receives -- and has been quoted by such diverse websites as InstaPundit and OverLawyered. So actually, I am doing my part to fight the good fight. And while I may rant now and then, at least I try to stick to real arguments and statistics when defending an unfettered Second Amendment. In fact, about the only thing that gets me cursing these days are trial lawyers -- and they get everyone cursing...

A bunch of us Pro-Second Amendment bloggers have gotten together to form a sort of "co-op" blog. The purpose is not to discuss the politics of guns -- just to discuss GUNS. Designed to feature articles covering everything from buying your first gun to maintaining it to gun safety and then onto more advanced articles about shooting, hunting, and all other aspects of the sport of firearms... Ladies and Gentlemen -- I present to you the:

The Shooter's Carnival is a serious attempt to bring as much information as possible into one spot in the blogosphere about gun ownership, the responsibilities that go with that, and most importantly, the fun and enjoyment that derives from it. Archives are divided into categories such as beginner, intermediate, advanced, safety, maintenance, legal issues, etc.

The founders include:

Boone Country, Hell in a Handbasket, Lay Lines, Publicola, SayUncle, The Smallest Minority, Stop the Bleating, ...and yours truly...me!

Submissions are welcome and instructions on "how to" are on the blog. It's just starting up so check it out. There is much more to come there so stay tuned and make sure you bookmark or blogroll it!