Sunday, December 31, 2006

George Bush Is a Hero

George Bush Is a Hero
Edward I. Koch
Wednesday, Dec. 27, 2006

President George W. Bush, vilified by many, supported by some, is a hero to me.

Why do I say that? It's not because I agree with the president's domestic agenda. It's not because I think he's done a perfect job in the White House.

George Bush is a hero to me because he has courage.

The president does what he believes to be in the best interest of the United States. He sticks with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day.

The enormous defeat President Bush suffered with the loss of both Houses of Congress has not caused him to retreat from his position that the U.S. alone now stands between a radical Islamic takeover of many of the world's governments in the next 30 or more years. If that takeover occurs, we will suffer an enslavement that will threaten our personal freedoms and take much of the world back into the Dark Ages.

Our major ally in this war against the forces of darkness, Great Britain, is still being led by an outstanding prime minister, Tony Blair. However, Blair will soon be set out to pasture, which means Great Britain will leave our side and join France, Germany, Spain, and other countries that foolishly believe they can tame the wolf at the door and convert it into a domestic pet that will live in peace with them.

These dreamers naively believe that if we feed the wolves what they demand, they will go away. But that won't happen.

Appeasement never works. The wolves always come back for more and more, and when we have nothing left to give, they come for us.

Radical Islamists are very much aware that we have shown fear. For example, we have allowed the people of Darfur — dark skinned Africans — to be terrorized, killed, raped, and taken as slaves by the supporters of the Sudanese government, radical Islamists.

The countries surrounding Iraq — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan — made up of Sunni Arabs, know that for them, the wolves who are the radical Shia are already at their door. The New York Times reported on Dec. 13, 2006, "Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq's Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats . . .

"The Saudis have argued strenuously against an American pullout from Iraq, citing fears that Iraq's minority Sunni Arab population would be massacred . . . The Bush administration is also working on a way to form a coalition of Sunni Arab nations and a moderate Shiite government in Iraq, along with the United States and Europe, to stand against ‘Iran, Syria and the terrorists."

This Saudi response will take place notwithstanding that until now, according to the Times, "The Saudis have been wary of supporting Sunnis in Iraq because their insurgency there has been led by extremists of al-Qaida, who are opposed to the kingdom's monarchy. But if Iraq's sectarian war worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal leaders."

The Times article went on to state the opinion of an Arab expert, Nawaf Obaid, who was recently fired by the Saudi foreign minister after Obaid wrote an op ed in The Washington Post asserting that the Saudis were prepared in the event of an American pullout to engage in a "massive intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

Obaid went on "suggest[ing] that Saudi Arabia could cut world oil prices in half…a move that would be devastating to Iran."

The Times reported, "Arab diplomats . . . said that Mr. Obaid's column reflected the view of the Saudi government." When writing about affairs of state in distant places, unless you are on the scene talking to knowledgeable participants, the most reliable sources to support conjecture with "facts" are the superb reporters of the great international newspapers like The New York Times.

Surely this turn of events in Saudi Arabia undoubtedly replicated in other Sunni-dominated countries — Sunnis are 80 percent of the world's Muslim population. This will give support to my proposal, advanced nearly a year ago, that we tell our allies, regional and NATO, that we are getting out of Iraq unless they come in.

That may well work, and they will come in, in large part and share the casualties of combat and the financial costs of war.

Doing what I suggest is far better than simply pulling out, which is the direction in which we are headed, notwithstanding the president's opposition. I think at the moment simply getting out and not making an attempt to bring our allies in is supported by a majority of Americans and would be supported by a majority of Democrats in the Congress.

For me, staying is clearly preferable, provided we are not alone and are joined by our regional and NATO allies, aggressively taking on the difficult but necessary task of destroying radical Islam and its terrorist agenda if we don't want to see radical Islam destroy the Western world and moderate Arab states over the next generation, or as long as it takes for them to succeed.

Two other requirements are needed to bring the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion: First, require the Iraqi government to allow greater autonomy for the three regions — Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. The second requirement is that the national Iraqi government enact legislation that will divide all oil and natural gas revenues in a way similar to that of our own state of Alaska.

The Alaskan state government takes from those revenues all it will need to finance government and provide services and the balance is divided among the population of Alaska, in a profit sharing program. That would settle the major Sunni problem which has been being cut out of oil revenues because the country's oil is located only in Kurdish and Shiite areas.

If the Iraqi government refuses our demands, our reply should be "Goodbye. You're on your own." This proposal was suggested to me by Mike Sheppard in Chapel Hill, N.C.

It won't be easy to implement this proposal. But President Bush has courage.

Now is the time to use it.

Edward I. Koch, author, lawyer, and talk-radio host, was a member of the U.S. Congress and, for 12 years, the 105th mayor of New York City.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Friday, December 29, 2006

Ding, Dong, the Witch is dead

CNN reported at 10:35PM Eastern Daylight Time, that former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein is dead. Execution by hanging was the chosen method. Frankly, I think it was TOO humane for him. If there was ever a reason to bring back the old "hanged, drawn and quartered" method, this man WAS the reason.

Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: NONE
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Monday, December 25, 2006

I have a new hate

In case you've not run into it, SORBS is my new hate. Under the guise of "fighting SPAM," SORBS has made it impossible for me to send email. For some odd reason, my web hosting service is using SORBS, why? I don't know.

I found out rather rudely when I tried to send an email and got the following response:
An error occurred while sending mail. The mail server responded: Dynamic IP Addresses See: Please verify that your email address is correct in your mail preferences and try again.

Naturally, the zeros were not what was in the message. It had my actual IP address. Thing is, I KNOW my IP address is a dynamic address. My normal ISP is AT&T (Formerly SBC). It seems that SORBS is blocking the entire line of IP addresses from AT&T, as possible SPAM spewers.

Frankly, I find this whole thing insulting. Since today is Christmas, I will give my web hosting service time to sort it out, but if this is not taken care of soon, I'll be moving my domains and my email service somewhere that doesn't use SORBS.

It's really a shame. I like my webhosting service, otherwise.

Current Mood: Pissed off
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Saturday, December 23, 2006

A letter to the editor

This is a copy of an email I sent to the Nanaimo News, concerning a story titled, " Something completely un-Christmas." (Hint: The title of this article is a direct link to the story.)
From the story published on December 23, 2006, I read the following comments.
"I know I’d hardly feel safe knowing that someone (anyone – given our equal rights climate, it would undoubtedly be unconstitutional to give the right to bear arms to women only) walking towards me on the sidewalk could be packing heat.

Putting more guns and hot lead into more people’s hands – even legally – isn’t going to make anybody safer. It’ll do exactly the opposite.

We've got enough problems already with illegal possession of firearms.

And given society’s ever-increasing inclination toward uncontrolled extreme anger (road rage, anyone?) putting firearms within easy and legal reach is a recipe for disaster."
These comments above are the same, stupid statements we heard here in Michigan over 5 years ago, when we were preparing to go from being a "May Issue" state to a "Shall Issue" state, with regard to concealed carry permits. Practically every state in the union has heard the same lame arguments when they considered going with Shall Issue concealed carry permits.

The overwhelming fact that most of the left wing liberals (US Liberals, not the Canadian Liberal Party) seem to overlook, those of us who apply for such permits are generally law-abiding citizens. Statistically, we have a higher rate of obeying the law, and a much lower rate of breaking the law than the general public. No, we're not perfect, no one is, including the much vaunted police forces. But, in general civilians have a higher rate of stopping criminals than law enforcement officials do, and a much lower rate of hitting the wrong person, than law enforcement officials also.

Yes, Canada does have a method of distributing concealed carry permits to it's citizens. However, so far, only those with real connections ever get one. And generally speaking, it's not the person with the LEGAL permit to carry you have to worry about. It's the criminal element who don't worry about getting a permit, that carry regardless, that you SHOULD be worrying about. It's like having a sea of sheep, with many wolves in sheep's clothing, and hardly any sheep dogs to protect the real sheep.

The USA is not perfect either, but the right to bear arms is not one of our imperfections. Only the haphazard way in which it is afforded to us, is in need of fixing. Canada has a chance to get it right on a national level, something I fear we will never do.

The right of self defense is a natural, basic HUMAN right. It needs no enumeration in a constitution. It exists, whether we acknowledge it or not. Along with that right is the ability to implement it. If we have the right of self-defense, then we MUST have the right to own the tools necessary to exercise that basic human right. Therefore, we MUST have the right to keep and bear arms, as many of our (USA) state constitutions say, "for the defense of themselves and of the state."

To deny these basic rights, you may as well surrender now, to some fascist/socialist dictator, and submit yourself to slave status. Because, that is what will eventually happen anyway. Our world is full of such examples. All you have to do is look.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music:None
Current Gun:Taurus PT92AFS

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Interesting quote, from a Kansas State Lawmaker

The quote below is in reference to carrying a gun in court. On Jan. 1, Kansas plans to permit judges and whomever they designate to carry concealed firearms in the courtroom. State senator Phillip Journey introduced the bill, and he is a practicing attorney.
"If I had a judge's permission, I'd do it every day," he said of bringing a gun into the courtroom. "Guns are like lawyers: Better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it."

I would not be one to say that Judges should not have the right to protect themselves. But what about the rest of us? Even in states that HAVE to issue a CCW permit (SHALL ISSUE, i.e., unless the issuing authority can show you are dangerous, or have some hidden infraction that would keep you from carrying) they still keep most, if not all of us untermensch* from carrying in places like courtrooms, schools and such. For some reason, unless you're one of the Übermensch**. You know, police, judges, district attorneys, actors and actresses, Chicago City Aldermen and women, and such.

Oh, but "we don't need protection, we're not Special!" I don't mean to belittle the jobs these people do (except for the actors and actresses, THEY are no better than I am. They just have "special" connections.), But that doesn't make their lives more precious than mine. By the same token, any cop or judge can go crazy just as much as I can. So why am I being deprived of my right to self defense in their presence?

*=under, or Sub human
**=Super human,

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Patti Smith - Because the Night
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

About Free Speech

Forbidden sale sign is focus in free speech case


December 6, 2006

CINCINNATI -- The car Chris Pagan wanted to sell is long gone. But he kept the "For Sale" sign in case he might need it as evidence in a three-year federal court battle over his right to use the sign on a public street.

Today, Pagan's case will be debated in an unusual hearing before all 14 judges of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lawyers helping Pagan with his case predict its outcome will gain national influence over freedom of speech issues and could redefine commercial speech rights for 32 million people in the court's four-state territory -- Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

The case stems from Pagan's 2003 attempt to sell his 1970 Mercury Cougar. He put a "For Sale" sign in the car's window and parked the car in front of his home in Glendale, Ohio, a Cincinnati suburb.

Glendale police threatened to cite him under an ordinance forbidding such signs on vehicles in public areas. Pagan, who practices law, tried to negotiate, but village officials wouldn't budge.

Pagan removed the sign. Inquiries about the car dried up because nobody knew it was for sale, Pagan said.

"I sold it under market value, because it was the best deal I could get," he said.

Pagan filed a federal lawsuit, launching a freedom of speech crusade against the village's half-century-old sign regulation.

"This is not a trivial thing. Glendale was seeking to throw me into the criminal justice system and subject me to jail time -- and they can't do that when they're violating the First Amendment," said Pagan, who could have been fined up to $250 and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

The Arlington, Va.-based Institute of Justice said it believes that if the village of Glendale wins the case, then "governments will be able to ban even the most harmless speech just because they feel like it," said Jeff Rowes, an institute lawyer.

"If they can ban totally harmless speech on a whim, what happens when more controversial speech comes along? If we decide that putting someone in jail is the right way to deal with ordinary speech like a 'For Sale' sign, the First Amendment is in grave jeopardy."

Glendale's attorney, Larry Barbiere, did not return telephone requests seeking comment.

Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.

This has to make you wonder. If you can't advertise your car, by putting a sign in it's window, what's next?

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: CZ-52 7.62x25mm

A gun in every home

Small-town Pa. councilman calls for a gun in every house
By DANIEL LOVERING, Associated Press
Posted Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 5:53 pm

CHERRY TREE, Pa. — In this tiny community of clapboard houses nestled along the banks of a Pennsylvania river, many residents own guns for hunting or self-defense.

But a local councilman, inspired by steps taken by an Idaho town, has proposed an ordinance that recommends all households keep the weapons and ammunition to ward off would-be burglars and prevent crime from creeping into the area.

Council members in Cherry Tree, a borough of about 430 people, are set to meet Wednesday to discuss the Civil Protection Ordinance put forth by Henry Statkowski, a 59-year-old retired U.S. Army master sergeant and Vietnam veteran.

Talk of the proposal, which also seeks to offer firearm training at the borough hall, has elicited cautious support and bitter rebukes from area residents, many of whom commute to jobs elsewhere.

Gun-control advocates say such a measure would risk putting guns into the hands of criminals and increase gun violence.

Statkowski maintains the ordinance would keep crime down — “way down” — in Cherry Tree, a quiet village where streets are marked with wooden signs and residents say crime is largely limited to drugs, vandalism, trespassing and speeding drivers.

“This is rural America,” Statkowski said in a phone interview. “You want to break into someone’s house here, you might not like the consequences.”

The ordinance is meant to be a proactive measure to complement the borough’s police force, which consists of a handful of part-time officers who also have day jobs, Statkowski said.

“They can’t be everywhere,” he said. “When you need help, you need it now.”

Statkowski said he decided to float the idea after learning of a similar ordinance passed last month in Greenleaf, Idaho, a town of about 850 residents where an estimated 80 percent of adults already own guns.

That ordinance asks people in the pacifist Quaker-founded town who do not object on religious or other grounds to keep a gun at home in case they are overrun by refugees from disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

Based on an unenforced 1982 law in Kennesaw, Ga., Greenleaf’s law originally required all homeowners to own and maintain a firearm. The town of Bowerbank, Maine, enacted a similar regulation 12 years ago.

The Cherry Tree measure would not be the first gun-related ordinance in Pennsylvania. In 1994, Franklintown repealed a law enacted 12 years earlier requiring each household to own a gun and ammunition.

Statkowski acknowledged that Cherry Tree, a one-time logging center about 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, does not have a crime problem.

“We don’t want one,” he said, citing a recent break-in 12 miles from the borough and a drug raid five miles away.

Gary Talerico, co-owner of a local insurance agency, said he saw no need for such a measure. He described the borough as a bedroom community that relies mostly on state police for law enforcement.

“When I first heard it, I had to stop and think if we were going back to the Western days, when everybody carried a sidearm,” he said. “Pros and cons? In the business we’re in, I can see a lot of cons,” including possible vigilante shootings.

But Esther Long, 59, a retired caregiver from neighboring Clymer, said she supported the idea, and that her two brothers and their children — all Cherry Tree residents — already have guns for hunting or protection.

“You just feel safer,” she said. “All of them keep a loaded pistol. I even do, and I live in an apartment complex.”

Retired coal miner Bill Schrock, 66, said he believes everyone should own a gun, but that the proposed ordinance was unnecessary.

“I think that guy just wanted to get on TV,” said Schrock, who lives in a nearby town. “It ain’t that bad around here. Might have a few sticky fingers around, that’s all.”

Diane Edbril, executive director of the gun-control advocacy group CeaseFirePA, said that “increasing the number of households with firearms will only increase the number of tragedies involving firearms in that community.”

She said it would also create the potential for burglars to steal guns when they otherwise might have taken only a stereo.
Copyright ©2006, The News Journal.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Now if we could get a much bigger town to enact such a law, that would REALLY make a statement.

Current Mood: Hopeful
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Common sense, from the Chicago Tribune???

Concealed weapons in the wilderness
by Steve Chapman

Published November 26, 2006

Lots of kids, when very young, worry about monsters under the bed. Even when Mom or Dad comes in to reassure them, the kids may still worry. But as they get older, they begin to check under the bed themselves. And eventually, after many monster-free nights, they figure out that the danger is purely imaginary, and they stop worrying.

You would think by now gun-control supporters would have made the same progress on one of their most fearsome demons: the licensing of citizens to carry concealed firearms. But they seem to be trapped in a recurring nightmare that exists only in their minds.

So imagine their alarm at a bill recently introduced in Congress that would allow people with concealed-carry permits to take weapons into their home state's national parks. The indefatigably anti-gun New York Times warned that the measure is a step toward "nationalizing the armed paranoia that the National Rifle Association and its cohorts stand for" and "can only endanger the public."

Such fears may have been plausible once upon a time--when Americans were generally not allowed to carry firearms. But since 1987, when Florida decided to let law-abiding citizens get concealed-carry permits, that has changed. Today, some 40 states have such "shall-issue" laws. They've become the norm, and the fears they inspired have proved unfounded.

As it happens, serious crime has waned in the intervening years. Murders are now at their lowest level since the 1960s. Violent crime has been cut by nearly 60 percent since the peak year of 1994. Gun crimes have plunged as well.

It may not be true, as some experts believe, that America has gotten safer because more people are legally packing heat. But it's impossible to claim that the change has made us less safe.

At the outset of this experiment, gun opponents forecast that hot-tempered pistoleros would spray bullets at the slightest provocation, requiring the rest of us to wade through rivers of blood just to cross the street. In fact, one of the most conspicuous facts about handgun licensees is their mild temper. It's rare for them to commit crimes, and even rarer for them to use their firearms to commit crimes.

A report by the Texas Department of Public Safety found that in a state with more than 200,000 people licensed to carry guns, only 180 were convicted of crimes in 2001, and most of those crimes didn't involve firearms. Only one licensee was convicted of murder. Florida, which has nearly 400,000 permit holders, revoked only 330 licenses last year--about one out of every 1,200.

This record should not be surprising. As a rule, concealed-carry licenses are off-limits to anyone with a history of crime, substance abuse, drunken driving or serious mental illness, and most states require safety training. In any case, people who are inclined to commit mayhem generally don't seek state licenses to carry guns, any more than they ask permission to break into houses or beat up girlfriends. It's the law-abiding folks who apply for licenses.

Why would these peaceable souls want to take their guns when hiking or camping in a national park? Same reason they might take them other places: a desire to protect themselves. Though federal lands are mostly safe, they sometimes play host to crime. In fact, park rangers are far more likely to be assaulted or killed than FBI agents.

The Times says, "If Americans want to feel safer in their national parks, the proper solution is to increase park funding, which has decayed steadily since the Bush administration took office." Maybe that would help, but we can't put a park ranger at every bend in the trail. And if you run into a thug in the backcountry, you can't expect the police or anyone else to come to the rescue.

For some people--solitary women in particular--having the means of self-defense in the woods can be not only a comfort but a lifesaver. It's fine to trust in one's fellow man. That doesn't mean it's paranoid to have a Plan B.

Judging from a wealth of experience, adopting this new policy would be a non-event, with no unwanted repercussions. The only danger it poses is to criminals, who would lose some easy prey, and anti-gun zealots, who would once again be proven wrong.


I hope that this guy keeps on working for the Chicago Tribune.

Current Mood: Surprised
Current Music: Heavy Metal (Takin a Ride) Don Felder
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Good Thing Michael Moore wasn't around in 1945, we'd have lost WWII!!!

Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do

Sunday, November 26th, 2006


Tomorrow marks the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.

That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.

Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.

Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.

** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.

There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.

The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.

A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that's what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn't stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn't say, "we're not leaving because we want your natural resources." They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn't say, "Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they're going to kill each other over that slavery issue!"

The only way a war of liberation has a chance of succeeding is if the oppressed people being liberated have their own citizens behind them -- and a group of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Ghandis and Mandellas leading them. Where are these beacons of liberty in Iraq? This is a joke and it's been a joke since the beginning. Yes, the joke's been on us, but with 655,000 Iraqis now dead as a result of our invasion (source: Johns Hopkins University), I guess the cruel joke is on them. At least they've been liberated, permanently.

So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or "redeploying" them, or waiting four months to begin the "phase-out." There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What's happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn't much you can do 'til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!

The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush's War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken.

This is what we demand:

1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.

2. Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security. We must commit to taking care of them so that they suffer as little as possible. The mentally and physically maimed must get the best care and significant financial compensation. The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives.

3. We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground. Now many more will die. Their blood is on our hands, regardless for whom we voted. If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become. When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq. We can receive no redemption until we have atoned.

In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history. We didn't know that WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years, including those when he massacred the Kurds. He was our guy. We didn't know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, never even heard the words. Eighty percent of our young adults (according to National Geographic) were not able to find Iraq on the map. Our leaders played off our stupidity, manipulated us with lies, and scared us to death.

But at our core we are a good people. We may be slow learners, but that "Mission Accomplished" banner struck us as odd, and soon we began to ask some questions. Then we began to get smart. By this past November 7th, we got mad and tried to right our wrongs. The majority now know the truth. The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again.

Unfortunately, we can't. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness.

We demand the Democrats listen to us and get out of Iraq now.


Michael Moore

Just an FYI, in WWII, we had a few more allies, INCLUDING Russia. And, in case no one realizes it, WWII was a TOTAL war, with all our military might involved, ALL of our production, and also that of our allies as well. The Iraq situation is not quite the same. We MIGHT be in a war, but it feels no different, generally than before 09/11/01, to me. Then again, I don't travel by air very much, either.

Current Mood: Disgusted
Current Music: Propaganda - Sparks
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Friday, November 24, 2006

Gun Facts, Part Five

Myth: Police are against concealed carrying by citizens

Fact: 66%of police chiefs believe that citizens carrying concealed firearms reduces rates of violent crime.20

Fact: “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen . . .I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.”21

Fact: “I . . . [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless”.22

Fact: Explain this to the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Second Amendment Police Department, and Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment, all of whom support shall-issue concealed carry laws.

20 National Association of Chiefs of Police, 17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs, 2005
21 Glenn White, president, Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997
22 John B. Holmes, Harris County Texas district attorney, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997

Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: In The Navy - The Village People
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Some basic info about the Pink Pistols

Based on a now deleted comment, it's now obvious to me that some people may be mis-informed about the make-up and purpose of the Pink Pistols.

First, the Pink Pistols is not an exclusively GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Trans-Gender/Sexual) organization. You do NOT have to fit into any of the preceding categories to join the PP. The idea of the PP is for people of "alternative lifestyles" to engage in shooting sports in an atmosphere free from animosity that frequently greets some people.

If you go the PP FAQ, you can see that you do not have to be Gay ( or any of the rest of the GLBT group) to join PP. And, the idea of "alternative lifestyles," covers more than just the four letters (GLBT). And, you don't have to be into alternative lifestyles to join. Many of our members are just straight, regular people. However, they are people without the prejudices of some of the more uptight people in society. (The person who posted a comment I removed is one example.)

And for that person, (and anyone else who fits the mold) I have a response for him.

Asshole: a stupid, mean, or contemptible person.
Add to above, also cowardly anonymous poser. :D

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: Bad To The Bone - George Thorogood
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Thanks to Cowardly ANONYMOUS drive by comments

I have no choice but to moderate any and all comments to this blog. I wish it were not so, but some people are so cowardly as well as OFF TOPIC in their comments, I can do nothing else at this time to assure my readers they won't be subject to these off topic and cowardly comments.

Current Mood: amused
Current Music: YMCA - The Village People
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Monday, November 20, 2006

Gun Facts, Part Four

Myth: People do not need concealable weapons

Fact: In 80% of gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occurred in places away from the defender's home.17

Fact: 77% of all violent crime occurs in public places.18 This makes concealed carry necessary for almost all self-defense needs. But due to onerous laws forbidding concealed carry, only 26.8% of defensive gun uses occurred away from home.19

Fact: Often small weapons (that are capable of being concealed) are the only ones usable by people of small stature, or those with physical disabilities.

Fact: The average citizen doesn’t need a Sport Utility Vehicle, but driving one is arguably safer than other vehicles. Similarly, carrying a concealable gun makes the owner (and his/her community) safer as well, providing protection not otherwise available.

17 "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
18 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Criminal Victimization in the United States”, 1993
19 Kleck and Gertz, National Self Defense Survey, 1995

This one is another favorite. How many of you have been told, if you feel afraid, call the police, hire security, get an alarm. Pardon me for laughing, but at my income level, I can't afford either a security guard, nor an alarm service. My best form of self defense is myself, with my gun. I've done pretty good for 40 years, I should be able to protect myself and my family for at least another 30 years.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Wolfe Tones - Rifles of the IRA
Current Gun: Tanfoglio Witness .45ACP

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Gun Facts, Part Three

Myth: Texas CCW holders are arrested 66% more often

Fact: This claim comes from the Violence Policy Center (VPC), a gun control policy group. Most arrests the VPC cites are not for any form of violent crime (for example, bounced checks or tax delinquency). 13

Fact: The VPC "study" only includes arrests, not convictions.

Fact: Many of these arrests in this premature VPC "study" came in the early years of Texas CCWs when the law was not understood by most of the law enforcement community or prosecutors.

Fact: Compared to the entire population, Texas CCW holders are about 7.6 times less likely to be arrested of a violent crime.14
The numbers breakdown as follows:
° 214,000 CCW holders
° 526 (0.2%) felony arrests of CCW holders that have been adjudicated
° 100 (0.05%) felony convictions

Fact: A different study concludes that the four year violent crime arrest rate for CCW holders is 128 per 100,000. For the general population, it is 710 per 100,000. In other words, CCW holders are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime.15

Myth: CCWs will lead to mass public shootings

Fact: Multiple victim public shootings drop in states that pass shall-issue CCW legislation.16

13 “Basis For Revocation Or Suspension Of Texas Concealed “, Texas Department of Public Safety, December 1, 1998
14 Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas State Rifle Association,
15 “An Analysis Of The Arrest Rate Of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders As Compared To The Arrest Rate Of The Entire Texas Population”, William E. Sturdevant, September 1, 2000
16 Lott J, Landes W; "Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement"; University of Chicago – covers years 1977 to 1995

The first myth above, the one about Texas CCW holders is my favorite. It was used here in Michigan back in 2001, when we were going from "May Issue" to "Shall Issue" on our CCW permit law. (Called Concealed Pistol License in Michigan). I jumped on this false hood in two different articles I posted on another site. First this one, then the 2nd one here after I got hold of the Texas crime report info. It just shows that the people who are against personal freedom will go to any lengths, to deceive those who are gullible into believing their truth is the only truth, even it their truths are nothing but lies and deceptions.

Current Mood: Thoughtful
Current Music: Back in Black - AC/DC
Current Gun: CZ-52 7.62x25mm

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Gun Facts, Part Two

Myth: People with concealed weapons permits will commit crimes

Fact: The results for the first 30 states that have passed “shall-issue” laws for concealed carry permits are similar. Here are some specific cases:
State       Permits issued   Revoked    permits % Revoked
Florida   551,000 6             109              0.02%
Virginia   50,000 7                  0             0.00%
Arizona   63,000 8                50             0.08%

Fact: People with concealed carry permits are:9
• 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
• 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public

Fact: In Texas, citizens with concealed carry permits are 14 times less likely to commit a crime. They are also five times less likely to commit a violent crime.10

Fact: Even gun control organizations agree it is a non-problem, as in Texas – “because there haven't been Wild West shootouts in the streets”.11

Fact: Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.

Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than a person with a concealed carry permit.12

6 October 1987 through Jan 1999
7 1995 – no follow-up data available
8 1994 through 1998
9 William Sturdevant, unpublished study reported in August 2000 edition of America’s 1st Freedom
10 Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News,
September, 2000
11 Nina Butts, Texans Against Gun Violence, Dallas Morning News, August 10, 2000
12 Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report”, 1998 – Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998

Current Mood: Blah
Current Music: This town ain't big enough - Sparks
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Friday, November 17, 2006

Gun Facts, Part One

The following is for the EDUCATION of Michael "I'm a big fat stupid white man" Moore and all his STUPID followers. More importantly, it points out a major fallacy in article 9 of his worthless "Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives."

Myth: Concealed carry laws increase crime.

Fact: Thirty five states1 (and the majority of the American population) live in “right-to-carry” states, and in each the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the law became active (as of July, 2006). Three more states generally issue permits, though it is optional ("do-issue").

Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started
in 1989.2

Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below the national average and remains below the national average to this day.3

Fact: The serious crime rate in Texas fell 50% faster than the national average after a concealed carry law was passed in 1995. Fact: When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons:
• Murder rates drop 8%
• Rape rates fall 5%
• Aggravated assaults drop 7%

Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws4:

Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.5

Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.

1 At publication time two more states, Kansas and Nebraska, have pass shall-issue legislation, but the new laws have not yet taken effect.
2 Florida Department of Justice, 1998
3 Cramer C and Kopel D. Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994
4 John Lott, David Mustard: This study involved county level crime statistics from all 3,054 counties in the U.S., from 1977 through 1992. During this time ten states adopted right-to-carry laws. It is estimated that if all states had adopted right-to-carry laws, in 1992 the US would have avoided 1,400 murders, 4,200 rapes, 12,000 robberies, 60,000 aggravated assaults – and saved over $5,000,000,000 in victim expenses.
5 FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 2004 - excludes Hawaii and Rhode Island - small populations and geographic isolation create other determinants to violent crime.

Yes, I know he's not likely to read this. But it makes me feel better. If you want to read the whole thing at once, and not wait for me to post it here, you can download the PDF version for free from The title of this article is also a link to the same place, and you'll find a link to GunFacts on the side bar as well.

Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: The Door Into Summer - The Monkees
Current Gun: Tanfoglio Witness .45ACP

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Dear Michael, take your pledge and SHOVE IT!!!

A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives

November 14th, 2006

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.

Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.

Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

Dear Conservatives and Republicans,

I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

Because, as a friend of mine put it, to disagree with someone being ANTI-American (i.e., YOU) IS Patriotic.

2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.

Really? Gee, I wonder then, why did the Anti-Gay marriage acts pass so overwhelmingly in so many Red states, like Michigan, for instance?

3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
Sure, if you call having 0 in the account, balancing.

4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
Unless of course it's YOUR mistake or lie, right.

5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
When you make America the last Western Democracy to have universal health coverage, America won't be a democracy anymore.

6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
We don't oppose it, we simply find YOUR solutions to be totally unreasonable, and un-doable.

7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
That's hilarious. YOU had the chance during your last watch to bring him in, and YOU didn't.

8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
Yes, and you'll turn abortion into an accepted form of contraception, something that every girl from the age of 10 on up will have unfettered access to.

9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
Ok, so you make the streets free from guns. WHAT ABOUT CRIME? How am I to stop a felonious assault after you've taken away my only means of self-defense? And FYI, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, you big, fat moron!

10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
Really? HOW are you going to pay me if I don't have a JOB? Where am I going to get a job, after all the potential employers have cut back their work force in order to pay this new minimum wage?

11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
But you already said you're going to violate my religious beliefs, by taking away my guns! By taking away my GOD-Given right to self-defense! You're not even actually in office, and you're already violating my religious freedom! What a load of horse crap!

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
Really? Well why the heck didn't you guys do anything about Bill Clinton? Oh, sorry, I forgot. You didn't make this "deal" with us then, did you. Oh, and FYI, you're not "in power." Not yet. And not for another 2 years, at least.

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.


Michael Moore

In case you don't get it, your pledge means NOTHING to me. It's a ton of bull crap, and I ain't gonna fall for it.

Current Mood: Blah
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Saturday, November 11, 2006

The Traffic Ticket

Jack took a long look at his speedometer before slowing down: 73 in a 55 zone. Fourth time in as many months. How could a guy get caught so often?

When his car had slowed to 10 miles an hour, Jack pulled over, but only partially. Let the cop worry about the potential traffic hazard. Maybe some other car will tweak his backside with a mirror. The cop was stepping out of his car, the big pad in hand.

Bob? Bob from Church? Jack sunk farther into his trench coat. This was worse than the coming ticket. A cop catching a guy from his own church. A guy who happened to be a little eager to get home after a long day at the office. A guy he was about to play golf with tomorrow.

Jumping out of the car, he approached a man he saw every Sunday, a man he'd never seen in uniform.

"Hi, Bob. Fancy meeting you like this."

"Hello, Jack." No smile.

"Guess you caught me red-handed in a rush to see my wife and kids."

"Yeah, I guess." Bob seemed uncertain. Good.

"I've seen some long days at the office lately. I'm afraid I bent the rules a bit -just this once."

Jack toed at a pebble on the pavement. "Diane said something about roast beef and potatoes tonight. Know what I mean?" "I know what you mean. I also know that you have a reputation in our precinct ." Ouch. This was not going in the right direction. Time to change tactics.

"What'd you clock me at?"

"Seventy. Would you sit back in your car please?"

"Now wait a minute here, Bob. I checked as soon as I saw you. I was barely nudging 65." The lie seemed to come easier with every ticket.

"Please, Jack, in the car"

Flustered, Jack hunched himself through the still-open door. Slamming it shut, he stared at the dashboard. He was in no rush to open the window.

The minutes ticked by. Bob scribbled away on the pad.

Why hadn't he asked for a driver's license?

Whatever the reason, it would be a month of Sundays before Jack ever sat near this cop again. A tap on the door jerked his head to the left. There was Bob, a folded paper in hand Jack rolled down the window a mere two inches, just enough room for Bob to pass him the slip.

"Thanks." Jack could not quite keep the sneer out of his voice.

Bob returned to his police car without a word. Jack watched his retreat in the mirror. Jack unfolded the sheet of paper. How much was this one going to cost?

Wait a minute. What was this? Some kind of joke?

Certainly not a ticket. Jack began to read:

"Dear Jack, Once upon a time I had a daughter. She was six when killed by a car. You guessed it- a speeding driver. A fine and three months in jail, and the man was free. Free to hug his daughters, all three of them. I only had one, and I'm going to have to wait until Heaven before I can ever hug her again.

A thousand times I've tried to forgive that man. A thousand times I thought I had. Maybe I did, but I need to do it again. Even now. Pray for me. And be careful, Jack, my son is all I have left."


Jack turned around in time to see Bob's car pull away and head down the road. Jack watched until it disappeared. A full 15 minutes later, he too, pulled away and drove slowly home, praying for forgiveness and hugging a surprised wife and kids when he arrived.

Life is precious. Handle with care. This is an important message; please pass it along to your friends. Drive safely and carefully. Remember, cars are not the only things recalled by their maker.

Funny how you can send a thousand jokes through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the sanctity of life, people think twice about sharing.

Funny how when you go to forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it to them.

Pass this on, you may save a life. Maybe not, but we'll never know if we don't try.

May today there be peace within you. May you trust God that you are exactly where you are meant to be. "I believe that friends are quiet angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly."

Just send this to (4) people and see what happens on the fourth day.

FYI, I'm passing this on to the world.

Current Mood: somber
Current Music: none
Current Gun: Taurus 617B2 .357 Magnum

Another message from the great toilet mouth

Ok, so at least he's not whining this time, even if he is exaggerating a bit.
LANDSLIDE! ...a big thanks from Michael Moore
November 8th, 2006


You did it! We did it! The impossible has happened: A majority of Americans have soundly and forcefully removed Bush's party from control of the House of Representatives. And, sometime today perhaps, we may learn that the same miracle has happened in the Senate. Whatever the outcome, the American people have made two things crystal clear: End this war, and stop Mr. Bush from doing any more damage to this country we love. That is what this election was about. Nothing else. Just that. And it's a message that has sent shock waves throughout Washington -- and a note of hope around this troubled world.

Now the real work begins. Unless we stay on top of these Democrats to do the right thing, they will do what they've always done: Screw it up. Big Time. They helped Bush start this war, and now they should make amends.

But let's take a day to rejoice and revel in a rare victory for our side -- the side that doesn't believe in unprovoked invasions of other countries. This is your day, my friends. You have worked hard for it. I can't tell you how proud I am to count all of you as part of the greater American mainstream we now occupy. Thank you for all the time you gave this week to get out the vote. Some of you have been at this since the large demonstrations of February 2003 when we tried to stop the war before it started. Only 10-20% of the country agreed with us at that time. Remember how lonely that was? Some people were even booed! Now, 60% of the country agrees with our position. They are us and we are them. What a nice, strange, hopeful feeling.

A woman, for the first time in our history, will be Speaker of the House. The attempt to ban all abortion in the conservative state of South Dakota was defeated. Laws to raise the minimum wage were passed. Democrats were elected to fill Tom DeLay's and Mark Foley's seats. Detroit's John Conyers, Jr. is going to be the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The Democratic governor of Michigan beat the CEO from Amway. The little township next to where I live in Michigan voted Democratic for the first time since... ever. And on and on and on. The good news will continue throughout today. Let's enjoy it. Savor it. And use it to get Congress to finally listen to the majority.

If you want to do one thing today, send an email or a letter to both of your senators and your member of Congress and tell them, in no uncertain terms, what this election means: End the war -- and don't let George W. Bush get away with any more of his bright ideas.

Congratulations, again! Now let's go find a spine for the Dems to do the job we've sent them there to do.

Yours in victory (for once!),

Michael Moore

P.S. Thanks for all those photos you sent me of you with your brooms at your polling places. They're still coming in and we're posting them here throughout the day. And for those of you who asked how "Sicko" is coming along, the answer is: better than we ever expected! We're hard at work in the edit room and it will be in theaters in June. Thanks again, everyone, for your support.

If you look through the pictures sent in, you'll notice this one:

Is it me, or does the guy with the broom look like he's wearing a Viet Cong flag for a shirt?

Current Mood: Neutral
Current Music: I'm So Lonesome I could cry - Hank Williams
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Danger evident in imposing mandatory gun storage laws

Danger evident in imposing mandatory gun storage laws

Published on: 11/08/06

Many gun owners store their gun with a "trigger lock," a device that prevents the trigger from being pressed until the lock is removed with a key. Other gun owners store their guns in safes or in "quick-lock" safety boxes, which pop open when a combination of buttons is pressed.

Some gun owners store their gun separate from their ammunition, or with a critical component (such as the bolt) removed. Any of these steps may be a sensible way to deal with the presence of guns and children in the same house.

National Rifle Association safety training strongly urges that any gun that is kept only for sporting purposes be stored in a condition so that it cannot be readily fired.

It does not make sense to mandate such storage conditions. The U.S. Constitution and the Georgia Constitution both guarantee the right to own a gun for defense, and mandatory locks nullify that right. A locked gun might not be readily available in an emergency; even a simple lock may be difficult to open at night when an attacker is just a few seconds away.

Moreover, the circumstances of protection in each individual home are too variable to mandate any one policy. A mother of a three-month-old baby, who lives in a dangerous neighborhood could safely keep a loaded gun in a bedside drawer. When the child grew older, the mother might store the gun's magazine (the device containing the ammunition) on a high closet shelf, with the hope that she could retrieve and insert the magazine if she heard someone breaking into her home.

If an ex-boyfriend started harassing her by phone, and threatened to come over that night and kill her, it would be sensible for her to keep the loaded gun on top of her bedside table as she slept, and even to carry the gun in a holster when she was awake. No single safety rule, written in the crime-free confines of a legislative chamber, can determine the best practices for gun storage in all situations.

The deadly danger of mandatory gun lock laws is illustrated by an incident in Merced, Calif., in August 2000. There, a pitchfork- wielding man cut the phone lines to a home, then broke in and began attacking four children while their parents were not home.

The oldest child, 14-year-old Jessica Carpenter, was unable to retrieve her father's guns from a locked cabinet. She ran to a neighbor's home, and the neighbor called 911. By the time the police arrived, Jessica's 7-year-old brother and 9-year-old sister had been murdered. Jessica's father's guns were locked up in accordance with the California gun storage law.

In countries such as Canada and England —which are cited as models by the American gun control movement—the need to ensure compliance with gun storage laws has been used to justify frequent warrantless inspections of the homes of gun owners.

In the last 35 years, the number of firearms in America has more than doubled, while the number of fatal gun accidents involving children has plunged. One reason is the NRA's Eddie Eagle program, which teaches children to stay away from guns, except under adult supervision.

• David B. Kopel is director of the Second Amendment Project at the Independence Institute, a think tank in Colorado.

Thank you David, I couldn't agree more.

Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: Run Runaway - Slade
Current Gun: EAA Witness - .45ACP

Election Aftermath

Well, it seems we have a change of the guard in the House of representatives coming next year. I'll be curious to see if the Democrats do better or worse than the Republicans did, when they were in charge. It should be interesting.

In Michigan, I was disappointed to see the Mourning Dove Hunt proposal (3) went down in flames. It's a shame that people voted with emotion and lies, and with their pocket books and the truth. Then again, Michigan hunters were up against the Humane Society of the United States, a rather effective anti-(all)hunting org. Unfortunately, this means it's only a matter of time before we can good bye to all forms of hunting. With their success in this venture, HSUS is sure to go after something else next.

I was however, happy to see Prop 2 pass. At least maybe now it will be a level field on the employment scene.

Current Mood: Neutral
Current Music: Chains of Love - Erasure
Current Gun: EAA Witness - .45ACP

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Seems we're not the only ones with border problems

Cops get tougher on illegal aliens
346 Bangladeshis using city as safe haven deported
Smita Nair & Stavan Desai

Mumbai, November 6: Pakistani nationals coming into the country through Mumbai as legitimate passengers and then disappearing, illegal migrants from Bangladesh showing up in police investigations into recent terror attacks—it’s only natural that Mumbai police’s prime focus is now on illegal aliens who are using the city as a safe haven.

The result is a systematic crackdown on the orders of anti terrorist squad (ATS) chief K P Raghuvanshi and police commissioner A N Roy. “This was always a problem, but after the 7/11 blasts we have stepped up vigil. We are taking preventive measures, too,” said Raghuvanshi.

According to the statistics available with the Mumbai police, so far in 2006, of the 501 Bangladeshis arrested till October, 346 have been deported. In 2004 and 2005, 701 Bangladeshis were deported.

But the challenge for the police is the fact that illegal migrants keep coming back and at times they are the same ones who were deported a year or two before. This, police say, is because of the porous India-Bangladesh border.

The special branch is making round-the-clock checks at various arrival points and well-known areas of the city. Among the 16 people arrested by the ATS so far for their alleged involvement in 7/11 blasts, at least two—Kamal Ansari and Mohammed Majid—are known to have escorted the terrorists to Mumbai after helping the them cross the border.

Last year, when the special branch arrested an illegal Bangladeshi migrant, 25-year-old Shabia Mohammed, her defence was: “I am poor and the city gives me money.” Days later, she was deported to Bangladesh.

But during a raid last month, the special branch wasn’t surprised to find her in their net—this time, she had changed her name to Bilkis Bano.

“This is a common practice,” says Roy. “Sometimes these Bangladeshis reach Mumbai even before the police escort who is sent to deport them is able to come back from Bangladesh.”

The issue is of a “porous border”, reiterated inspector Vishwanath Satam of special branch. While areas like Raey Road, P D Mello Road, Sakinaka, Govandi, Dongri and Wadala are the traditional hotspots, investigators say “they (illegal migrants) are all over, having shifted to Mira Road and Thane districts.”

So well entrenched are the migrants, that most come up fake passports, ration cards and voter ID cards when confronted during a raid. “Repetitive arrests have made them smart. They ensure that paper work is complete. Sometimes, it does not even take more than Rs 100 to get a fake ration card,” says special branch officer.

Thankfully, a supreme court judgment strengthens the investigators’ case: only a birth certificate can be ascertained as a legal document in such cases. “Also, we do not have a national identity card which would have solved matters once and for all,” adds Roy.

Ok, I don't like the idea of a national ID card. But maybe there's some other lessons to be learned from India's illegal alien problem?

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus 617B2 .357 Magnum

Denny's Restaurant and discrimination

On Oct 20, 2006, at 2:00 p.m., my wife and I went to the Denny’s restaurant at 1220 Gale Gardner Way in Prescott AZ. Upon walking thru the front door we heard 3 or 4 servers from Denny’s in the main section of the restaurant talking very loudly in Spanish. So loudly that it was irritating. So, I asked the Hostess that was to seat us, if we could be seated in the English speaking section, (I do believe the persons name was Phillis). She turned and looked at the commotion that was going on, and turned back to me and said no problem, follow me. So she seated my wife and I in a different section and gave us menus. We said thank you and she left.

At this time a nice young girl named Leah came to take our order. At this point we discovered that Phillis had given us menus that were in Spanish, so we asked Leah, our server, for English menus and two cups of coffee. She apologized and brought the coffee, and went to get our menus. At this time, a man came over and leaned over the table and said he was the Manager for Denny’s (I believe his name is Patrick).

At this point he said "Denny’s does not allow any discrimination and you must leave right now." My wife asked him what we had done, he just acted very rudely and said "you must leave right now." He then said "Denny’s does not tolerate any type of discrimination, YOU MUST LEAVE."

My wife and I were shocked, we had never been asked to leave any place before. This Manager was very intimidating and we were very embarrassed, and I called him a couple of names as he ushered us out of Denny’s.

My wife and I own a Bar and Restaurant here in Prescott and we have never been treated like this any place, nor would we treat any of our customers like this. We were harassed, talked down to and discriminated against. We also feel that Denny’s may have violated our civil rights.

This is an official complaint, and we feel that we have been wronged by the Management of Denny’s. Our embarrassment has now been replaced with anger that Denny’s would hire racist managers and hostesses, and that Denny’s would condone this type of discrimination and harassment to Americans in their establishment.

We are in need of a attorney that does harassment and discrimination law suits in AZ. This is the letter we sent to Denny's and we are tired of being pushed around. Please help by pointing us in the right direction. Thank you.

Wayne and Leah *********

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus 617B2 .357 Magnum

Monday, November 06, 2006

If you're stupid, don't vote

This from a "community contributor" to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

If you're stupid, don't vote


Posted: Nov. 2, 2006

Aside from what they actually vote for, what many people disagree on is whether or not it's the responsibility of eligible citizens to vote. Since you technically don't have to vote but might be wondering if it's right for you, I've assembled this list to help you discern whether or not you ought to vote.

• If you believe that it's everyone's responsibility to vote, you're stupid. Don't vote.

• If you're disillusioned with the entire democratic process because you don't like President Bush, voted against him twice yet he still got elected, you're stupid. Don't vote.

• If you understand the depth and nature of the American military's sacrifice from Bunker Hill to Baghdad and its continued importance to our survival as a nation and as a collective soul, you're smart. Vote.

• If you want to re-elect Gov. Jim Doyle because you saw a TV ad that says Rep. Mark Green gives kickbacks to Big Oil, you're stupid. Don't vote.

• If you want to vote for Green because you saw a TV ad that says Doyle gives kickbacks to everyone else, well, I think you're right but that doesn't necessarily make you smart. Don't vote.

• If you think Milwaukee Republicans got carried away about Democratic voter fraud in recent years while supporting voter ID requirements that make sure votes are being cast by actual people, join the Democratic Party, change your name to John Doe and vote 1,700 times.

• If you've already moved to China because it has bought up a majority of our debt and is moving closer to a democracy, you're smart - and disloyal. Send an absentee ballot.

• If you support the space program, vote twice.

• If you think "Barack Obama bin Laden" is the country's greatest threat since "Albert Hitler," congratulations on graduating from the U.S. public education system. But don't vote.

• If your primary motivation for voting is that someone offered you a pack of cigarettes if you vote for Candidate X, you're an honorary Democrat. Don't vote.

• If you view freedom not as something that you automatically should be entitled to just by existing but should be regularly and proactively exercised, you're smart. Vote.

• If you believe that Wisconsin needs to be more like Illinois, and therefore should have more tollways, move to Illinois and vote there.

• If you were asked who Chester A. Arthur was and you responded, "Did he start a sandwich franchise?" no points will be deducted - it was a good guess. You can vote.

• If you feel that your financial well-being is the responsibility of the government, the upper class, the middle class, your kids or anyone who's not you, you're stupid. Don't vote.

• If you get emotionally upset because a columnist called you stupid, don't vote. You're easily excitable and shouldn't have any say over who gets access to The Button.

Now, total up your score: Add a point for "vote"; subtract a point for "don't vote." If your score is zero or above, feel free to vote. If you got a negative number, steer clear from voting booths and longer words in general.

By the way, if you really use this list to figure out whether or not you should vote, you're stupid. Don't vote.

Dan Kenitz of Hartford is a writer who runs a political Web site, His e-mail address is

(Thank you Barbara!)

Current Mood: VERY Amused
Current Music: Life During Wartime - Talking Heads
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Just in from Fox News

It was recently announced on FoxNews that Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death by hanging, for crimes against humanity.

It's about damn time!

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Rifles of the IRA - Wolfe Tones
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Michigan voters, vote YES on Proposition 2

That's right, I said to vote "YES," on Proposition 2 in Michigan. It's high time we ended discrimination in our hiring practices, and in college/university selection. Don't listen to the lies, find out for yourself how Prop 2 will finally even the playing field when it comes to jobs and higher education.

Check out this.

Current Mood: Tired
Current Music: Dragula - Rob Zombie
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Now he's targeting Concealed guns?

Mike targets concealed guns

Saturday, November 4th, 2006

Mayor Bloomberg blasted his political predecessors yesterday for handing out concealed-gun permits to their well-connected cronies.

"We have been pretty hard-nosed about renewing [permits]," Bloomberg said on his weekly WABC-AM radio show.

"Sometimes, some administrations, you know, if any of their friends want a gun permit, they just gave it to 'em," he said. "And I don't think that's right. I think you should have to justify it."

Bloomberg did not single out any of his predecessors for blame or identify the New Yorkers he believes were wrongly given permits to carry concealed weapons.

The well-known New Yorkers who have obtained permits in the past include Donald Trump, Howard Stern and state Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno.

Bloomberg has been crusading against illegal handguns since being reelected and co-founded a coalition, which now consists of 109 mayors, dedicated to stopping the sale of illegal guns.

Yesterday, Bloomberg said he also is hoping to reduce the number of people allowed to carry concealed weapons in the city.

"If you tell me you need a gun permit, you're telling me you don't think the NYPD can do a good job in protecting you," he said. "Most people, I don't see any reason why they need it."

Michael Saul

Come on, Mayor! Make up you're frigging mind!! Either you want to get ILLEGAL guns off the street, or you want ALL guns off the street. WHICH IS IT??? As for trusting NYPD to protect me, are you saying I'll get my own personal cop for protection, if I should visit your fair city? If so, that's great, fantastic. Then of course, I would not need a gun for protection. But I have to say, if you have enough police officers to protect EVERY citizen in NYC, that's got to be one LARGE police department.

So, answer me this. WHY does crime still happen in New York City??? I'm confused. If they NYPD is good enough to be capable of protecting everyone, how come there are still murders, rapes, robberies and muggings going on?

Current Mood: Cheerful
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Dear Mr. Kerry, You can go TO HELL!

Kerry then told the students that if they were able to navigate the education system, they could get comfortable jobs - "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq,"
Pasadena Star News

Apparently "Mr." Kerry thinks that our Service men and women are stupid. Maybe he's right. WHY should they defend a country that doesn't appreciate their service? What I mean is, between John Kerry, who's now called them uneducated, and John Murtha, who's called them war criminals, if I was still in, I think I'd turn my tank around and point it's weapons at their offices!

With fellow citizens like the ones above, who needs enemies?

Current Mood: Pissed
Current Music: Heresy - Nine Inch Nails
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Gun laws haven't cut murder rates: study

Gun laws haven't cut murder rates: study
October 23, 2006 - 4:40PM

Australia's guns buyback has not reduced rates of gun murder or suicide, a new study says.

The paper, published in the British Journal of Criminology and written by pro-gun lobbyists Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, found the buyback of 640,000 guns at a cost of some $500 million failed to make Australia safer.

That contrasts with the views of other studies and Prime Minister John Howard, who say the guns buyback has made Australia safer.

The buyback and tough national gun laws were instituted in the wake of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, when lone gunman Martin Bryant armed himself with an arsenal of semi-automatic weapons and killed 35 people.

Self-loading rifles and self-loading and pump-action shotguns were banned, with a 12-month amnesty period for people to hand in their weapons and receive compensation.

The laws outraged farmers and recreational shooters but were widely accepted as necessary to stop future massacres.

The new paper disputes whether the laws have worked.

Ms McPhedran is the chairwoman of the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting, while Dr Baker is the South Australian president of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia.

They cited data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to say the gun law reforms had not affected actual gun murder rates per 100,000 of population.

Neither could the reforms be shown to have altered firearm suicide rates because suicide rates by other means had also begun to decline in the late 1990s.

"Reducing the number of legally held firearms, banning certain firearms, and increasing the requirements that must be met to legally own firearms has not produced the desired outcome of a safer society," Ms McPhedran said.

"We cannot say firearm suicide rates were affected by the laws. Social changes and emphasis on prevention initiatives appear to have lowered suicides using all methods."

AIC figures point to a long-term trend in falling gun death which preceded the 1996 gun laws reforms and continued after it.

In the period 1991-2001 the number of firearm deaths in Australia, including murder, suicide and accidents, dropped by almost 50 per cent.

But University of Sydney public health professor Simon Chapman attacked the report, complaining aspects were "verging on academic dishonesty".

Professor Chapman said the study failed to differentiate between gun deaths where one or two people were killed and the large-scale massacres that the tough gun laws were designed to prevent.

Prof Chapman said the best evidence that Mr Howard's gun laws were working was that there had been no mass shooting sprees since they were introduced.

The professor said the paper was based on "statistical smoke and mirrors".

© 2006 AAP

So Prof. Chapman, what you're saying is, you'd rather see 200 people die each year in ones and twos, rather than in groups of 10 or more? I suppose that is progress. In a weird sort of way.

Makes me glad I don't live down under!

Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: Over the Rainbow/Wonderful World - Big Brudda Iz
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Pam Colletta, on Michigan Dove Hunting

I don’t like being lied to. Do you? Voters need to know that they are being lied to when they hear the ads saying one should vote no on dove hunting in Michigan.

The ad begins by saying that dove hunting proponents are trying to change tradition, when actually Michigan dove hunting advocates are trying to embrace a tradition that is long established across the US. In other states the opening day of dove season is a bigger family tradition than the opening day of deer season!

The ad then goes on to say that out-of-state interest groups are behind the dove hunt in Michigan. In reality it is Michigan hunters who have been trying to open up dove hunting in our state for more than 20 years. The irony in this issue is that the group behind the fight to prevent dove hunting in Michigan is from outside of the state. The Humane Society of the United States (not to be confused with the legitimate American Humane Association) is a California based anti-hunting organization. The President of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, has stated that their goal is to stop hunting in the United States one animal and one State at a time. Preventing Michigan hunters from hunting mourning doves is just one step in achieving their goal.

Another point they make is that doves do not damage property. In fact doves do millions of dollars of damage to crops in Michigan, including eating seed from the sunflowers grown here for oil; and disfiguring trees when they enter and exit the boughs in the spring and early summer as the new growth is forming on the spruces and pines grown for Christmas trees.

The anti-hunting groups claim that doves are only shot for target practice because they are so small that they cannot be used for food. The reality is that doves are very difficult to shoot because they fly in an erratic manner, changing direction quickly with no warning. As target practice they are not a very cooperative specimen. As far as being too small to eat, there is more meat on a dove breast than there is on a shrimp or a bluegill.

The anti-hunters aver that mourning doves are not overpopulated in Michigan. While doves may not be overpopulated, they are not underpopulated either. Each spring and summer doves lay and hatch two to three times during the season, hatching two to six young in each nest. Even if only two survive from each nesting that makes at the very least, double the number of doves each year. It has been proven that they repopulate at a faster rate than it is possible to hunt them. In the 40 states where doves have been hunted for many years biologists have learned that the attrition rate of doves to hunting does not come close to equaling their attrition to death by natural causes. The life expectancy of a mourning dove is 18 months to 3 years. The majority of the dove population die of natural causes over the course of a year. If they are going to die anyway why not put them to good use and eat them?

So, when the ads say there is no good reason to hunt doves remember that there are good reasons - namely because they make good food and a fun and challenging activity the whole family can enjoy. The next time you hear that ad on the radio or see it on TV I hope you’ll remember the truth about what they are saying. And come November 7th vote YES on Proposal 3.

Pam Colletta

Current Mood: Thoughtful
Current Music: Never Gonna Give you Up - Rick Astley
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Monday, October 30, 2006

Free Speech Online is Under threat

Amnesty International Warns Free Speech Online Is Under Threat

October 27, 2006 12:34 p.m. EST

Mary K. Brunskill - All Headline News Staff Writer

London, England (AHN) - The human rights group Amnesty International is saying freedom of expression online is being threatened and is asking bloggers to support the right to speak freely on the Internet. The group asks that bloggers write on free-speech violations and declare that they do not support any kind of suppression of speech over the Internet.

Steve Ballinger of Amnesty International tells BBC News, "Freedom of expression online is a right, not a privilege - but it's a right that needs defending. We are asking bloggers worldwide to show their solidarity with Web users in countries where they can face jail just for criticizing the government."

"People have been locked up just for expressing their views in an e-mail or on a Web site," he says. "Sites and blogs have been shut down and firewalls built to prevent access to information."

Ballinger points to Iranian blogger Kianoosh Sanjari as an example of someone the government punished for speaking his mind. Sanjari was arrested early this month after discussing conflicts between the Iranian police and the supporters of Shia cleric Ayatollah Boroujerdi on his blog.

Amnesty International is taking its campaign to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which is a group the UN set up to act as a debating body for national Internet policies.

"The Internet Governance Forum needs to know that the online community is concerned about free expression online and is willing to stand up for it," Ballinger says.

I don't often agree with Amnesty International. The seem a bit too much to the left for me. However, I do agree on this subject. Our basic Human right of Free Speech online is being threatened, not only by oppressive governments, like Iran, but to a lesser degree, and worse, more surreptitiously, by our own "democratic" government as well.

Be on the lookout for any violations of Free Speech online. Report them, if you have a blog. If you don't, tell someone you know who does, keep this in the public eye. Well, the internet public anyway.

Current Mood: Neutral
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus PT92

Monday, October 23, 2006

The 'Gunguys' are at it again.

They apparently forget the old saying (one that most liberals are happy to quote when they're behind in the polls) There are lies, damn lies,statistics, and polls.

Funny, I never got a call from any pollster asking me, my opinion.

Poll: Majority of Americans Want Stronger Gun Laws

Finally today, Gallup has released a new poll that says, in plain numbers, just how extreme the NRA is. All across the country, a strong majority of Americans favors stricter gun laws.

Many adults in the United States would like to enact tougher regulations for firearms, according to a two recent public opinion polls. In a survey by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News, 61 per cent of respondents favour stricter gun control laws in their country.

In a study by Gallup released by USA Today, 56 per cent of respondents feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, down one point in a year.

The U.S. Constitution's second amendment guarantees Americans the right “to keep and bear arms.” Some American states have enacted their own gun control regulations, independent of existing federal legislation.

The Second Amendment doesn’t “guarantee” anything– gun guys often forget that the Amendment also contains the phrase “well-regulated.” We need stronger gun laws in this country, because without them, we face an epidemic of gun violence– in our schools, on our streets, anywhere our citizens try to live safely. Most Americans, it’s clear, understand that. The NRA, a clear minority, can’t seem to get it through their heads.

And 'Gunguys' can't seem to get it through their skulls that the NRA is not the only Pro-2nd Amendment group out there, not to mention, they forgot what the US Attorney General's Office has already stated:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

Hey Gunguys, get a hint. Get it right, for a change.

Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: Propaganda - Sparks
Current Gun: Taurus 617B2 .357 Magnum

Friday, October 20, 2006

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the next Hitler?

Ok Mahmoud, what is this crap???
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that Israel no longer had any reason to exist and would soon disappear.

"This regime, thanks to God, has lost the reason for its existence," Ahmadinejad told a crowd of thousands gathered at a rally in support of the Palestinians in the capital Tehran.

If you ask me, Mr. Ahmadinejad has no reason to be, anymore. Could someone PLEASE take this guy out!?! You'd be doing the entire world a huge favor.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Hey, Mayor Nagin, GIVE THE GUNS BACK!!

Yeah, you, Mayor Nagin. The court has already told you to stop your Nazi gun confiscation tactics. And you've been told to give them back. So what's the hold up? Since your Storm Troopers took her gun away and beat her up, Ms. Patricia Konie has been robbed, in her own house, because your brown shirts took her gun, she could not defend herself!

Mayor Nagin, YOU should be ashamed. I am not normally a litigious person, but I hope Ms. Konie gets a good lawyer, and sues the City of New Orleans, and YOU. You deserve it, so you might learn that taking away a law abiding citizen's rights have consequences.

And, you can kiss my Big White Hairy Butt!


Big Gay Al

For those of you who might be interested, click on the title of this post, it will take you to, and you can see some frightening videos of police storm troopers in action in New Orleans. Normally, I have the highest respect for the men and women who work in Law Enforcement. But those who took part in the ILLEGAL gun confiscation efforts against law-abiding citizens, should be ashamed of their actions, and should be stripped of their office.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Bad boys (Theme from Cops) - Inner Circle
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

India vows to work for conventional disarmament

What ticks me off, they try to make it sound like the idea is to stop illicit trade in small arms. Their (The UN) actual goal is to stop the trade (both legal and illegal) in ALL small arms to private citizens. Once you or I can no longer own, buy and/or possess firearms, we will be subjects, not citizens. And that is the difference between being Free, and being slaves.

Indo-Asian News Service

United Nations, October 18, 2006

India has vowed to work towards steady progress in the areas of conventional disarmament as small arms and light weapons directly affect a large mass of people in conventional conflicts.

If the entire spectrum of weaponry that is the focus of disarmament and arms control measures was to be placed within a pyramid, it would have a three-tiered structure, Indian delegate Anil Basu said in a UN General Assembly committee debate on Tuesday.

"Nuclear weapons, our foremost priority, will constitute the top of the pyramid, followed by chemical and biological weapons at the middle layer. But the broadest part of the pyramid will be made up by conventional weapons and small arms and light weapons," he noted.

While it is vital to address the apex of the pyramid, its base constitutes a larger, more contingent concern, affecting directly a large mass of people afflicted by conventional conflict, Basu said.

As India's approach to disarmament and international security is guided by a strong commitment to international humanitarian law, it hoped to have a positive and forward-looking outcome of the Review Conference on Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva next month.

India is among 20 state parties that adhere to the entire CCW package. It also favours strengthening the convention through a compliance mechanism.

Unregulated and illicit trade in conventional weapons, small arms and light weapons are continuing to have devastating consequences, Basu said. The direct costs include death, injury and trauma and the cost of caring for the wounded and disabled, not to speak of the destruction of the civilian infrastructure.

The indirect costs include displacement, destitution and prolonged underdevelopment. The proliferation of illicit trade in small arms and light weapons gravely endangers the security of states, disrupts their social harmony and hampers growth and development.

The ready availability of illicit weapons foster organised crime, drug trafficking and illegal exploitation of natural resources. It promotes sectarian violence, insurgency and terrorism, he said.

India is, therefore, strongly committed to the full and effective implementation of the UN Programme of Action on Preventing, Combating and Eradicating Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.

"It is a good augury that we now have an international instrument containing vital commitment by UN member states to mark all small arms and light weapons according to universal standards and cooperate with each other in tracing illicit ones," Basu said.

Hoping for similar cooperative action in other related areas concerning small arms, including on brokering and the prohibition of transfer of weapons to non-state actors, including terrorists, he said India has a forward-looking approach.

"We believe that, even on the contentious issues, a balanced approach could accommodate national security imperatives, humanitarian requirements, financial costs and technological constraints, Basu said.

India also favours strengthened cooperation in mine clearance, including unrestricted transfer of mine clearance technology, equipment and training; risk education; rehabilitation; victim assistance and socio-economic betterment of mine-affected communities.

"In the field of conventional disarmament, we believe that an enhanced level of transparency will contribute greatly to confidence building and security amongst states," he said.