Monday, February 28, 2005

That's mighty white of them

In Canada the PC culture is now fully entrenched. In Canada you can go to jail for insulting and saying bad things about any one of scores of small protected groups. But somehow this tom-foolery is just fine with them.
"Please be advised that effective immediately the Ontario region of the Correctional Service of Canada is no longer maintaining an inventory for parole officer applications from the general public," the Feb. 19 letter reads.

"Due to staffing resources we will continue to accept applications from aboriginal and visible-minority candidates only."

CSC is committed to having a "skilled, diversified workforce reflective of Canadian society," the letter continues, adding that future vacancies may be posted that are open to the "general public."
I do not feel sorry for them. They keep voting in the same PC cultists who feel that set asides are the best way to correct wrongs done decades and centuries ago then you have to live with those choises.
Conservative MP Myron Thompson called the policy "unbelievable" and "craziness" and suggested CSC is putting political correctness ahead of merit.

"I can't believe they would put that in writing," he fumed.

"What's happened to merit in this country -- abilities and skills? What's happened to training and expertise?
What happened??? Look at the bills you have passed making it illigal to say bad things about special groups with political pull. Look in the mirror in another words you political hack.

You made your bed, you sleep in it Canada.

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Criminals on the run

Not only are they going to break laws, they seem to be bragging about it. If they are in your neighborhood please stop them. No matter how dumb the laws are.

Friday, February 25, 2005

Carnival of Cordite #2

The Carnival is up at Resistance is futile, and it starts out with a story that has been hot the last several days. Seems CNN either broke a few federal laws or else they lied on air. This is one that is not going away. Drop by and give the posts a good read.
8 days

It may be a record for a police investigation to occur on one of their own. Not only was it fast but it ended with a cop being fired.

It started with a visit to a park Feb 16th.
The incident occurred at Simpsonville Park in Simpsonville, S.C. last Wednesday. A group of mothers and children from Upstate Homeschoolers Unlimited were socializing and playing in the park – a common activity for homeschool support groups.

After a call came in to police about someone in the park having a knife, a plainclothes policeman rushed into the picnic shelter where some of the homeschoolers were gathered.

According to parents who witnessed the event, the policeman began shouting at two teenage boys, pushing at least one to the ground. When he went to grab one of the boys, a mother, who at the time was holding another woman's baby, stepped in to stop him, not realizing he was a police officer.
"(The intervening mother) turned to Jan and said, 'Call the police.' That's when he told us that he was the police," Adams said.

The 16-year-old boy was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, a small hunting knife on his belt, and the mother was arrested for assaulting a police officer, even though witnesses say the man's badge and gun were not in a place where they easily could be seen.
Every time I hear a report of a cop saying "He told me to shut up or I would be arrested too. " reminds me of Cartmen in South Park and his "Respect my authority" line.

Well Karma must have kicked in because the police chief has done the right thing.
A week after an incident at Simpsonville City Park, Simpsonville's police chief says the officer involved in the arrest of a teen and a woman at a picnic has been fired.

In a statement released Thursday afternoon, Chief Charles Reece announced the investigator involved in the case, officer Michael Snow, has been terminated, and all of the charges have been dropped.

"Anytime you have to discipline, it's hard. That officer had been here five years, and I knew him well, but I have a job to do," he said.
No blue wall of silence here. The cop acted like a thug and was fired. Good.

Chief Charles Reece seems to be a different breed of cop. Here is a section from his profile on the police website. While most police say they want to work with the people it looks like he is making a good effort.
It was a great honor to be promoted to the rank of Chief of Police on May 23, 2000. It has long been a goal of mine to obtain the rank of Chief. Since being promoted I have initiated several programs that I am extremely proud of. The program that I am most proud of is BOOKS AND BADGES. This program puts Police Officers in Schools reading to our children. It also teaches them about safety. I think it's very important that all children learn to read and receive an education. Another program that I have implemented is the BICYCLE PATROL. This is also a first for Simpsonville. The Bicycle Patrol allows Officers to interact closely with our citizens. It also allows Officers access to areas not easily obtained in a marked Patrol Car. This program allows our citizens to become more familiar with our Officers. We will be implementing a CITIZENS POLICE ACADEMY. This program will allow citizens to receive training that Police Officers must complete in order to become an Officer. It also gives citizens an understanding of why Officers make decisions they make.
So 8 days from the incident to the firing is impressive.

Here is a link to the Upstate Homeschoolers Unlimited. They have a news page with regularly updated links to articles on the ongoing situation.
Brothers In Arms

Dave Kopel has released part two of his report on gun control and race in America(part one). To say it is filled with stories that belies M. Moore's stance that pro-gun people are racists and just short of hooded thugs.

Now I would love to copy the whole thing here as it is that good. I will simply give a few quotes and ask you to read it.
A. Philip Randolph, editor of the socialist black magazine Messenger, agreed: "Always regard your own life as more important than the life of the person about to take yours, and if a choice has to be made...choose to preserve your own and destroy that of the lynching mob."
Indicted for first degree murder, Sweet was acquitted after a lengthy trial at which Clarence Darrow served as his attorney. Black newspapers such as the Amsterdam News and the Baltimore Herald vigorously defended blacks' right to use deadly force in self-defense against a mob.

Darrow summed up for the jury: "eleven of them go into a house, gentlemen, with no police protection, in the face of a mob, and the hatred of a community, and take guns and ammunition and fight for their rights, and for your rights and for mine, and for the rights of every being that lives. They went in and faced a mob seeking to tear them to bits. Call them something besides cowards."
There was a slight flaw in the set-up, however. The man and woman had arms and they were not afraid to shoot…The leaders of the five thousand…had numbers. They had machine guns. They had sulphur bombs. They had tear gas bombs. But the two in the house had rifles, shotguns, and perhaps a pistol or two. Not so good. Not half as good as one lone Negro with nothing but his bare hands…
A right cannot be taken away, not when you have the ability to protect them. The right to live is one that sometimes has to be reinforced and protected with a weapon.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

No plus side in my view

The English government just released a report that must have really hurt to do. It says that CCTV cameras do not lower crime. While England has the highest amount of cameras watching them per person and more are being installed daily, the government has finally announced what many have been yelling for years, with evidence.
Closed circuit TV systems are of little use in the fight against crime, a surprise government report claims today.

Home Office researchers who studied 14 schemes across Britain found that only one had brought a clear fall in the local crime rate.

While there was strong public support for CCTV before it was installed, opinion began to shift when people realized the cameras made little difference.
Now while this article is about the useful, or useless nature of the CCTV cameras one line bothered me the most.

Here in the US one of the leading objections to cameras is the right to privacy. The desire of big government, left and right, to know what we do every moment of our life's grows daily. But the article shows something in one line of type that says a lot more then they might have wanted.
On the plus side, only one in six people objected to CCTV on civil liberties grounds.
The writer considered that a "plus". Very Orwellian to use that word. What next. Will he say that it is "doubleplusgood" when it is less then one in six?
'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take "good", for instance. If you have a word like "good", what need is there for a word like "bad"? "Ungood" will do just as well -- better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of "good", what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like "excellent" and "splendid" and all the rest of them? "Plusgood" covers the meaning, or "doubleplusgood" if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words -- in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.'s idea originally, of course,' he added as an afterthought.
Somehow I feel he could have used a better word then "plus".

England lives under the ever watchful eyes of the government. They walk, shop, and jog will being viewed by people just looking for one slip. The problem is that crime, real crime is not effected. Liberties go in the name of safety. Why do so few British subjects(what a horrible word) object to their liberties being infringed?

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

They sure do see a lot in a adult toy

Alabama has a humorous law banning the selling of sex toys. While 90% of America would laugh at this and mutter about those weird southern Christians I find some of the 11th circuit court language outrageous.
The Supreme Court (search) declined Tuesday to review the constitutionality of a state law banning the sale of sex toys, rejecting an appeal that said consumers have a right to sexual privacy.

Without comment, justices let stand a lower court ruling that said Alabama had a right to police the sale of devices that can be sexually stimulating.
I have a lot of trouble with the idea that any state can tell me where I can put my johnson with a toy I just bought. What happens between me, my wife, the inflatable doll, the midget in the corner and the camera man is my own business.

But the 11th court opens their mouth and becomes a joke.
A divided three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. It said in a ruling last July that siding with the sex toy merchants could open the door to the legalization of undesirable sexual behavior such as prostitution.
Wow. The pure evil of that toy may open the door to people selling their body on the corner. Now maybe there is a legal argument for it, but such a leap of logic is beyond my comprehension.

Then they go even farther into the realm of fantasy.
"On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases including, for example, those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like."
Two things in this one paragraph are upsetting. "if we today craft a new fundamental right". WHAT!! I have the fundamental right to my own johnson and using it with any toy I want. This court feels that your sex life and buying what you want for it is their business. That is so screwed up that it is upsetting. The government feels that it has to control everything and now they feel our private life between lovers is their business. Screw that!(No pun intended). Then they say this " we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases including, for example, those involving adult incest". A sex toy and the right to privacy will lead to adult incest? By adult I think they mean that a sister and brother may become a couple when they become adults. How they came to bring this up is weird.

They almost seem desperate to bring in offensive items to try to justify their ruling.

I have seen some strange ruling from some courts. The 9th in California seems to be the center of a lot of them, but darn if a southern state has decided that your bed is THEIR bed, and your shopping privacy is THEIR privacy.

The only good thing is this.
In a dissent, Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett said the decision was based on the "erroneous foundation" that private sexual acts can be made a crime in the name of promoting "public morality."
Thank you Judge Barkett.

Yes it only bans the sell of them, but that is one ban closer to my bed then I like.
Evacuation is not the right word.

Without getting into the whole Israel-Palestine debate I find this article rather enlightening. The Israeli government has decided to give up the Gaza strip for peace. The fact that they gave up the Sinai two times for peace and never got it worries me, but they have the right to fall down again.

It seems some "settlers" may resist, so what does the government do? Guess?
Public Security Minister Gideon Ezra said Tuesday that police will confiscate arms of people whom the General Security Service determines are "dangerous." Most residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) have either private handguns or rifles from the army for guard duty in their communities and for reserve duty.
I like the label of "dangerous". Not because they are a danger to the people around them, but because those weapons in private hands are a danger to the governments plan to force you out of their home for some far off political reason.

The Israeli government has come to the realization that their people may not want to be forced around. What better way to deal with them then to label the people that are a problem with the title of dangerous. I feel everyone should be dangerous to government abuse and bully tactics. But that's just my belief. The gun-grabbers here in the US have slowly been labeling you and I. How many times have you heard the term "gun-nut"? Sometimes in life titles can move the populous to believe something that is not true. Labeling people as wing_nuts and moonbats seem to be a subtle way to demean people.
Ezra said police will take the weapons from certain residents before implementation of the evacuation.
For me evacuation means that you make the choice whether to stay or leave. When forced you are being herded like mindless animals. Cattle do not have weapons.

So the Israeli government has taken the first step to taking the rights of their own people away. But remember, it is always for your own good. Doesn't that make you fell safer?

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Out of both sides of their mouths

I love to sit and read a good article where a politician or other nanny individual says one thing to look good for the pres, but later does the exact opposite to look good for the bureaucratic machine we live under.

This story started when someone noticed a plate on a car in the local school lot. The plate bothered them so much they complained.
An employee's car parked at Abraham Lincoln Elementary School lot has sparked fury among some parents ushering their children inside the school each morning.
The car -- a red, late-model Ford Mustang with a novelty plate on its front end reading "Fight crime, shoot first" -- irritated one parent so much that she complained to her son's pre-kindergarten teacher. The parent, who asked to remain anonymous, also took the issue up with school Principal Sandra Dunning earlier this week, as well as Superintendent of Schools Karla Brooks Baehr.

"Being a member of the staff, well, you have to be an example to the kids," the mother insisted. "You don't just do whatever."

"I can listen to parents and listen to their concerns," Dunning said. "But we do live in America. That's part of our democracy, free speech."
Sounds good right. Principal Dunning mentioned free speech and that it is a right we all enjoy. Makes me happy to hear those words. So at this point you figure the parent will leave all upset and free speech wins. Well get ready to be disappointed. Like all good administrators they have the ability to say one thing and do the something totally different."
If anything disrupts the educational process, we do have the right to ask staff and teachers to maintain a code of conduct," she said. "What is parked in a lot or on a street is a different matter, however. Whatever happens in the building we have control over."
Again she acts like she can do nothing. After all it is not IN the building. Right?
The solution? Dunning and Baehr plan to mandate that the staff member somehow cover the plate upon arrival each morning, possibly with magnets and a cloth. The plate will be covered by the first day of school after February break, Feb. 28, Behr said.
Ahhhhh! There it is. The truth. So they wrapped themselves in the constitution and claimed that this person had freedom of speech, and then screwed that person right nicely.

This car is, by extension, part of their castle. It is their property and the school is totally wrong in doing this. They did say "If anything disrupts the educational process" but honestly. Do they think this would be said "I would have passed the geography test but that darn plate upset me so much", or "I got knocked up because I was so worried in sex ed. that I did not listen". They have bowed down and suppressed free speech because ONE parent was upset. It takes so little to destroy a freedom now adays.

In the Keep and Bear Arms comment section one comment said it all.
The new Nazis are Mommies in Minivans. I don't know exactly how they got this way, but there are a lot of them, and they seem to be everywhere.
so true.
In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all — security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. — EDWARD GIBBON [On ancient Athens]

Monday, February 21, 2005

Free enterprise wins in the end

Repeat after me people. "If there is a demand, there will be a supply.". That is basic economics. The shame is that the ones teaching our children seem bothered by this fact(BUG ME NOT).
When Austin High School administrators removed candy from campus vending machines last year, the move was hailed as a step toward fighting obesity. What happened next shows how hard it can be for schools to control what students eat on campus.

The candy removal plan, according to students at Austin High, was thwarted by classmates who created an underground candy market, turning the hallways of the high school into Willy-Wonka-meets-Casablanca.

Soon after candy was removed from vending machines, enterprising students armed with gym bags full of M&M's, Skittles, Snickers and Twix became roving vendors, serving classmates in need of an in-school sugar fix. Regular-size candy bars like the ones sold in vending machines routinely sold in the halls for $1.50.
I love it. The school administration, in a "follow the leader" mentality simply did what other schools have done in the modern anti-everything good movement.

Supply will be found. I know because when I was a senior in high school I became a dealer in goods for most of the year, and made a little money off of it. I was lucky enough to look older for my age, and found a store that thought I was 21. Well let the good times role. Getting out of school one day 15 kids were waiting for me to get their special orders. My dealer days lasted until the store got new management.

If you ban something you need to understand it is not banned, it simply will be out of sight. The supply will be there and available, but simply more costly. Banning something has never worked.

What I like in this article are these two sections.
As for students peddling such contraband, Spelman would only say, "I'm sure there's a temptation to do that. Is it something that we condone? If there's something that we hear about that's going on, we do deal with that because they shouldn't be doing that."
"Shouldn't be doing that" is the worst line possible to be mutter from this bureaucratic drone. These kids are learning supply, stocking candies that they can sell. Cost verses rewards. Heck even security by keeping it out of teachers view. They are probably learning more by selling candy then in any mindless economics class.

And this one
The Austin High administration, which won't elaborate on how much or little it knew about the candy black market, has since replenished the vending machines with some types of candy.

Principal Barbara Spelman said the school did so after becoming more familiar with the minimal nutritional standards.
So they replenished the machines because they started to see if their knee jerk decision had any basis in fact. They banned candy because it was the fashionable thing to do. "Hey look at us! We are so good doing this with no research or facts to back us up! Give us raises!"

So some good came from this fiasco. The kids learned good business practices and the community learned the administrators are fools.

Saturday, February 19, 2005

What is a criminal?

Larry Pratt has written a good article on why criminals break the law. It gives some good insight into the fake aura of victimhood they try to wear based on their mental capacity, childhood, and social status. Only problem is that Mr. Pratt does not buy it and gives good points to back his beliefs up.
Samenow argues that even if criminals have a mental illness, they commit crimes because they want to do so. Lots of people have mental illness, but very few of them commit crimes.

Samenow warns that criminals are not stupid. If they score low on IQ tests, that is usually because they could not care less about learning the kinds of things in school that are measured by such tests. They are quite adept at picking up on what will help them -- the law being a favorite course of study behind bars.

Also, criminals are quick to pick up on psychological jargon and get good at feeding it back to the practitioners. In other words, crooks are good at scamming mental health workers. If someone thinks they are nuts, not a crook, and that will get them out of jail, then, they quickly learn to sound as if they are mentally ill.
I would like to point out one thing. Jails are filled with two types of people. True criminals whose actions create victims and hurt society. They are the true criminals. The other type are law breakers. People who did not have the right number of domestic made parts in the firearm they built or forgot to file another stupid form thus becoming a felon. Lawbreakers normally have no victims outside of the control that government wishes over each of us.

Criminals hurt people, lawbreakers are people hurt by the governments and its millions of laws.

He also found another disturbing trend in the true criminals
Another implication of Samenow's research is that prisons do not make criminals into criminals, although they may increase their networking behind bars for when they get out.

Criminals like the excitement of doing what is prohibited. It is a characteristic they demonstrate often very early in life. Normal living is boring. Breaking the law is fun.
While they thing breaking the law is fun the people who carry and have illegal firearms to protect themselves break the law out of desperation. The thing is both would be punished equally under the law if found out.
To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country. — Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and New York [London 1823]

Friday, February 18, 2005

Regulations and loopholes

I love it when a stupid regulation are made. Not because I like regulations, but because I like to see how people find ways around them. The inherent nature of man is to get, one way or another, what he wants. Be it naked flesh in his face, drugs, fast cars, or forbidden literature. People will get what they want for their particular vice and desire.
A city ordinance bans complete nudity at all gentleman's clubs, but one has challenged that ordinance by distributing pencils and sketch pads to patrons during "art night."

The ordinance does give nudity exclusions for artistic displays which include dance, ballet and dramatic performances, so every Monday and Tuesday, the club encourages customers to sketch the models as they perform nude routines.
Now I am not here to argue the pro's and con's of the adult entertainment industry. The fact is that if people want to see something like this it will occur. Be it a legal joint like this, or a backroom joint run by a Guido type of character.

The local government that passed this law might have felt they were their to protect the values of their little community. The problem is that people like this would not know a good time if it spoke French, sat on their face and wiggled.

So I salute art night and what it says about the Boise laws, and what it says is "kiss off".
Happy birthday to me

Had two birthdays in the last 7 days here in No Quarters land.

Last Friday, February 11th, was the one year mark for this blog. With this as my first post.
Welcome to my world. It's dusty and cluttered, but I like it.
I would like to extend to Geekwitha45 a big thanks. His help and advice got me over several technical issues with blogger. I would also like to say thanks to Say Uncle for the invitation to the Rocky Top Brigade here in Tennessee.

I would like to say I read my first blog post when I was looking up some information on a certain rifle. What I found was some of Kim du Toit's gun pics. I was hooked. From there I was introduced to other blogs and the rest is history.

The other birthday is mine. Today celebrates the day I came into this world weighing 7lbs 11 ounces. That was 37 38 long years ago.

So happy birthday to me two times over.
Like a parrot

This guy is selling on ebay 303 brass and you need to know that it is dead, primerless, and a funny funny read.

Go read it before it is pulled by ebay.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example. —OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES
I cry foul

Many have heard of the controversy in California about tagging and following students like cattle in one of the local schools. A decision that occurred without any parental involvement. Seems that the vocal individuals have made things so hot the company involved has "pulled out of the deal". Something does not ring right about this and I am not sure what.
The grade school that required students to wear radio frequency identification badges that can track their every move has ended the program because the company that developed the technology pulled out.

"I'm disappointed; that's about all I can say at this point," Earnie Graham, the superintendent and principal of Brittan Elementary School in Sutter, said Tuesday night. "I think I let my staff down. Nobody on this campus knows every student."
Sounds pretty straight forward on the surface until I read the last paragraph in the story.
The school had already disabled the scanners above classroom doors and was not disciplining students who didn't wear the badges.
So from this I can see that the system was up and running. How does a company pulling out mess it all up? Unless that company was the one running offsite the main server then it seems that the school could still run it without technical support. I did some googling of the company who made the items and found their website filled with happy tagged students in a faux school setting. This shot also includes the smiling young student walking under the big brother device mounted into the frame above her.

I did find one story that enlightened me about whom the company is. It seems the company and the school system is closer then they would want you to think.
InCom has paid the school several thousand dollars for agreeing to the experiment, and has promised a royalty from each sale if the system takes off, said the company's co-founder, Michael Dobson, who works as a technology specialist in the town's high school. Brittan's technology aide also works part-time for InCom.
I wonder if the school is more upset about the bad PR or the loss of royalties?

But note that the school tech specialist and the tech aid also work for the company. So the fact that they "shut off the system" because the company pulled out is not something I buy for a second. The school has the system. I say the school pulled out because they realized people, well at least some, do not like their kids being treated as cattle. What next? Instead of lanyard RFID tags they demand under the skin tags?

So the company did not pull out in my view, no matter what they say. The den of nanny'ists have run back into their hole for now is more likely the truth. They will return.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Dear Federal Government

Sincerely take a long walk on a short pier


It seems that Montana is in the process of telling the federal government that the regulating beast that it has become had better stop now!
Lawmakers in the Montana House of Representatives collectively thumbed their noses at the federal government Monday by approving two bills exempting guns from federal regulations and driver's licenses from national standardization requirements.

The bills by Reps. Diane Rice, R-Harrison, and Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, do different things but are driven by the same concern: the erosion of personal liberties by the federal government.
Koopman said Monday his gun bill, House Bill 366, would inspire a home-grown industry of gun-makers who produce firearms to be sold in Montana. It also sends a message reaffirming states' rights.
Seems that Montana have been reading the tenth amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, norprohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,or to the people.
While the constitution is rather direct in what the federal powers are the legal side of it is rather confusing.
In 1941, the Court came full circle in its exposition of this Amendment. Having returned four years earlier to the position of John Marshall when it sustained the Social Security Act\27\ and National Labor Relations Act,\28\ it explicitly restated Marshall's thesis in upholding the Fair Labor Standards Act in United States v. Darby.\29\ Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Stone wrote: ``The power of Congress over interstate commerce `is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.' . . . That power can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non- exercise of state power. . . . It is no objection to the assertion of the power to regulate interstate commerce that its exercise is attended by the same incidents which attended the exercise of the police power of
the states. . . . Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which . . . states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.''\30\
Translation. "exercised to its utmost extent" means that federal government can regulate pretty much anything. Now I am not saying this is correct. I am saying that is what the law says.

There is some hope in a ruling in New York of all places.
The Court's 1992 decision in New York v. United States,\65\ may portend a more direct retreat from Garcia. The holding in New York, that Congress may not ``commandeer'' state regulatory processes by ordering states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, applied a limitation on congressional power previously recognized in dictum\66\ and in no way inconsistent with the holding in Garcia. Language in the opinion, however, sounds more reminiscent of National League of Cities than of Garcia. First, the Court's opinion by Justice O'Connor declares that it makes no difference whether federalism constraints derive from limitations inherent in the Tenth Amendment, or instead from the absence of power delegated to Congress under Article I; ``the Tenth Amendment thus directs us to determine . . . Whether an incident of state sovereignty is protected by a limitation on an Article I power.''\67\ Second, the Court, without reference to Garcia, thoroughly repudiated Garcia's ``structural'' approach requiring states to look primarily to the political processes for protection. In rejecting arguments that New York's sovereignty could not have been infringed because its representatives had participated in developing the compromise legislation and had consented to its enactment, the Court declared that ``[t]he Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or State governments, [but instead] for the protection of individuals.'' Consequently, ``State officials cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.''\68\ The stage appears to be set, therefore, for some relaxation of Garcia's obstacles to federalism-based challenges to legislation enacted pursuant to the commerce power
So there may be a good argument that the laws that may pass in Montana are simply feel good laws, or the beginning of a large legal fight to stop the regulatory power of the federal government controlling everything by their dismisal of the tenth amendment.

These are some interesting times we live in people. That's all I have to say.
Are you a Valentine day criminal?

Did you call your wife/husband and go into detail about what you plan to do to their body when you got home? Did you call and go into detail how you look in the new sexy outfit you got and how he may just rip it off with his teeth in an fit of passion?

Well if you are a proud resident of Georgia you may have just broke a law controlling "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" suggestions made by telephone. It does not matter if you are married or not. This very bad law could still get you if the local prosecutor decides your a bad person.
Justice Robert Benham of the Georgia Supreme Court received Valentine's Day legal advice from a county prosecutor who was defending a state law that criminalizes "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" suggestions made by telephone.

Hearing arguments over whether the law violates free speech rights, Benham had wondered aloud about the fate of millions of Georgians who might use the telephone on Monday to call their spouses and make lascivious suggestions.

The phone is off limits for such X-rated talk, even to one's spouse, said Inez Grant, Forsyth County assistant solicitor, because "the state can regulate its public utilities," including telephone lines.
Now the case involves a 19 year old prisoner whose telephone calls between him and his 13 year old girlfriend were recorded. Now that automatically could turn some people against the case. But realize that even the lowest scum has the same rights as you and I. Free speech is one of them.

The ACLU has filed an Amicus brief(PDF) in the case, and while it is long, it does go into detail about all the many, and there are a lot, of errors with this law. There was a federal law like this, surprised? That law, 47 U.S.C. 223, has been amended 9 times since its adoption in 1968 because it was so badly written and anti-constitutional. I use anti-constitutional instead of unconstitutional because some laws seem to not just break, but work against the constitution. That same year the Georgia assembly adopted one with almost the same language. But since it has not been used as much there has been less chance to tear it apart.

Here is a copy of the law.
(a) It shall be a misdemeanor for any person, by means of telephone communication in this state, to:
(1) Make any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;
(2) Make a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number;
(3) Make or cause the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or
(4) Make repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number.
(b) Any person who knowingly permits any telephone under his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Section (a)(1) is what he is being charged under. The problem is that some, hell a lot of talk between people when in an amorous mood would be lascivious.

So for once the ACLU is on the right side of a fight. While this guy might be scum, he is scum that has the right of free speech. No matter how much our government does not like it.

From the article one part gives me hope that it has a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
Most of the court members appeared highly skeptical of the law's constitutionality. When Grant first brought up her argument that the state could regulate telephone speech because it regulates telephones, Justice Carol W. Hunstein exclaimed, "What?"
My final thought on the subject is this. They feel they have the right to control speech on the phone for this reason.
the state could regulate telephone speech because it regulates telephones
The standard governmental thought pattern. "What we regulate we control totally". They need to be taught otherwise real darn fast before our rights are regulated out of existence.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Marriage acts around the country.

It seems to be the vogue thing to do today. Pass some law defining marriage and controlling us in our own houses and love, of course for our own good. Cannot forget to mention that.

I have an idea. Get the state out of marriage.
Around 270 A.D.—according to one tradition, at least—St. Valentine, a Roman cleric, was imprisoned for his opposition to Emperor Claudius' decree that young men (his potential crop of soldiers) could no longer marry. Valentine performed their ceremonies anyway and was thrown in jail for his obstinacy. His belief was that marriage is too sacred a rite to relegate to the incompetence of state bureaucracy. And, on February 14, he was executed for that belief
Can anyone tell me one thing that the government has not dabbled in that did not end up more screwed up then when it started?
For millennia, state entities have manipulated the people through matrimonial bureaucracy. In Sparta, marriages were often arranged even as sexual partners were assigned, and pedophilia was exercised as a prerogative of the state. The legal system of the antebellum South never recognized slave marriage on the grounds that "property" could not enter into legal contracts, and in countries from Russia to Afghanistan, marriage has been used to oppress women and to assert the superiority of czars and dictators in the ruling regimes.
You may not like gay marriage, you may not like blacks and white ending up married. Tough! I say get the government out of marriage and half the problems would go away. Simplistic yes. But it is an idea that has a better chance of working then the dueling laws of today.
I do not believe him

Not for one second. His history tells a different story.
Gonzales, who served as White House counsel during the last four years, said he would be a part of Bush's team but his first allegiance will be to the Constitution
This is not good news for personal freedoms, and people who wish not to be tortured.

Monday, February 14, 2005

40,000 plus weapons seized and why it sucks

Down in Australia the government announced that 43,000 weapons had been seized in a "crackdown". But the article says more then what they wanted to say.

MORE than 40,000 weapons were seized in crackdowns across New South Wales, the state's police commissioner Ken Moroney said today.
I think this is called "blowing his own horn". Maybe it is election time down there.

Mr Moroney said NSW police carried out a big audit and compliance check of all firearms in NSW last year.
He said the audit, combined with the NSW Government's gun buyback, had seized 43,000 weapons, most of which were firearms.
Now we get to the gravy. This was a large amount of time the police could have been using to fight crime instead is wasted on seeing everyone had all of their paperwork in order. It also shows that when firearms are registered they are easy to find and seize.

In total, 185,000 licensed firearm holders were identified, holding about 600,000 registered firearms between them, he said.
They were not "identified". They simply pulled their name up on the firearm registration database.

Mr Moroney said that, as part of the blitz, thousands of weapons were destroyed because police were not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely, or that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted".
So if the firearm is destroyed you have no chance of getting it back. Gosh. The problem is that you should not have to "satisfy" the police that your firearm is secure. All you have to satisfy is yourself. The whole part about the firearm being "warranted" is enraging. Why do they have to prove they need one? I know, I know. Because they live in a socialist nanny state. But the idea that a person needs to prove they need to protect themselves, or go target shooting is criminal and immoral.

"Some 43,000 weapons were seized and subsequently destroyed by NSW police during (20)03-04," he said.
The next time someone says that registration will not lead to gun seizures tell them to go screw themselves. Registered firearms will be seized, history shows that, and they will be destroyed or turned on you.

Mr Moroney said a number of private security firms had closed following a police audit of the industry.
In the United states the police are not legally bound to protect you. Without the ability to hire private security I wonder if Australia has had a foolish court ruling like that also. Soon there it will be the police, needlessly checking paperwork, unarmed citizens behind closed doors, and armed criminals running free. England is a good example of their future.

"We're working with the security industry of course in terms of the ballistic testing of all firearms in possession of the security industry itself," the commissioner said.
They may want to make an overseas call to Maryland on that issue.

"... We've sought to apply a strong audit and compliance regime with the industry itself.
Translation: We will regulate them out of business.

"As a consequence of that a number of private security firms have had to close down.

"We're not satisfied with the level of security that they've been taking."
I think it is less them being satisfied with the industries security, then it is them wanting to be the only ones with firearms.

The security industry had strongly supported the police actions, he said.
Quislings in every group is my response.

Detective Superintendent John Kerlatec said so far this year six guns had been stolen from security guards compared to about 10 last year and more than 60 in 2003.
So criminals are going to get firearms one way or the other. No matter how many background checks and registrations you force on the people the criminals end up armed.

This article shows several things that most people do not like to hear. The most obvious is that when firearms are registered they can easily be seized and destroyed. The other is that the police will use the seizures to grandstand for increased budgets and headlines during elections. England is lost I feel, Australia is sinking and will soon follow. I know simply that I will not register a single firearm I have. Never.
Beating the wrong dead horse

Freedom, to most, is a basic value and right. The knowledge of freedom is not gained only by reading books, or sitting in a classroom. They are part of a whole learning experience that helps us evolve as free people.

There has always been debate about limits that should be applied to freedom for societal good. Limits on speeds on roads, limits on physical actions, and any number of others. The greatest divide right now is not between the left and the right. I feel deep down that the left and the right are a lot closer to each other then they would ever want to admit.

For me the divide is between two groups that can be labeled by the following two questions
Do we make the rules?
Do the rules make us?
While the questions on the surface look simple they, for me at least, show what separates and holds this nation in bondage.

Do the rules make us?
This is the nature of the Republican and Democrat party. A belief that the rules make us...

An example is affirmative action on the left. Martin Luther King Jr. in my humble view was a good man. He marched and put his life on the line for what he thought was right. He was beaten and jailed many times. Why? For freedom. I have always thought all of his speeches and sermons could be condensed down to two lines. The first is "Get the hell off our backs" and the second was "let us be the best that we can be". He never talked about reparation for civil war promises that I can find. He never talked about affirmative action. So here the civil rights movement defines my two statements of freedom.

Do we make the rules? These people decided the rules were wrong. They marched and they got the rules changed. Beaten and jailed they made the rules. They put their bodies and lives on the line because they knew that the rules made them second class citizens, so the rules needed to be changed.

Do the rules make us? These people see the civil rights movement and decide that they will pass laws to "make them". They pass laws and force people to hire minorities and they feel that they have brought up a group. With these laws they have "made us". They make rules that you have to give a certain amount of contracts to groups so they will be "made". They feel that a group will never do good until there is a law to make them "better and stronger".

Another fine example is gun control. Heck there might never be a better example of the separation between groups.

Do the rules make us? While the democratic party leads the fight many in the republican party are not far behind. Laws. Each and every one of them designed in the name of safety that limit us are prime signs that a group feels that the laws make you. "If we ban handguns there will be a lowering in crime". Laws like this are made to make us safe and act nice. No guns, no violence. We all then sit on a side of the hill with a bottle of coke and sing fucking kumbaya. As you know this has not happened. Debate aside on why they fall back on their basic belief that laws make us and guess what they do? They make more laws to "make us" safe.

Do we make the rules? This is a fine example of what has happened in the last decade in the 2nd amendment movement. People in states, many with no connections to the larger firearms groups like the NRA or GOA, have started to push for concealed carry. They decided that they make the rules. The people make the rules. So due to this in a lot many states we now have concealed carry. The whole fight shows the divide and gulf separating the two groups in this country. The fight against the AWB and its successful death shows the ability of the people to deliver a message that we will make the rules.

I could go on and show several other good examples of what the two groups believe but I just realized why I started to write this in the first place. A survey recently came out and it shows some frightening beliefs in the students of today.
Most American high school students lack a full understanding of the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a survey released yesterday said.

Seventy-five percent of 112,000 students surveyed said it is illegal to burn the American flag as a means of political protest, and nearly half believe that the government can censor the Internet

The survey found that 36 percent of the students believe that newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval of stories, and 17 percent of the students believe that the public is prohibited from expressing unpopular opinions.

Overall, the survey found that high school students express little appreciation for the First Amendment's tenets: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble and the right to petition the government.

Nearly three-quarters of student respondents said they either don't know how they feel about First Amendment freedoms or take them for granted.
I have read blog after blog with people bemoaning the fact that children are not being taught basic freedoms. I have to disagree and say I think that they are being taught freedoms. Maybe not the ones you like, but they are the ones the system likes.

Here is a small breakdown
illegal to burn the American flag as a means of political protest
The rules make us. The rules define us and how we can protest
nearly half believe that the government can censor the Internet
The rules make us. The rules define what we can see for our own good.
newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval of stories
The rules make us. The rules define what we should be allowed to know and report on
17 percent of the students believe that the public is prohibited from expressing unpopular opinions
The rules make us. If you start preaching views that are not liked there could be social unrest, and that will not be allowed.

The schools are run today by people who feel that zero tolerance is the best approach. The rules will make you safe. These are the people who are deciding the curriculum for your children and our future.

So who do I feel is most responsible for this survey? The parents for the most part. The ones who blindly drop their children off at school to spend most of the day being taught the rules the system likes by ones who like rules. Parents who do not get involved and help decide what the rules will be.

The system is based on rules made by people who feel rules make you. These rules teach your children that these magical rules will make them better and stronger. They are not taught that they make the rules and their own future without legal chains on their wrists.

Don't blame the system. It is doing exactly what it has been made to do. It is producing children who believe that rules make us better. Blame the ones who do not try to change it and follow it blindly. Blame the ones who did not tell about the sacrifices of other family members who went to war for freedom, or marched in the south for freedom. Right now if you honestly believe that we make the rules then you have to understand that the educational department is not your friend and may never be.

Friday, February 11, 2005

Beyond stupid

The nature of business is to make money, not bend over to sooth the weenies of the world. Lately in many email boxes across the country this email appeared.
Dear Customer
I am writing to apologise.

We feature a T shirt in our new Mini Boden catalogue with an image of a toy gun (Sheriff T Shirt). Many of you have contacted us about this.

I don't want you to think we are an irresponsible organisation. I founded this company to create clothing ranges that captured a spirit of fun, honesty, individuality and family. We have made a mistake with this product and we feel stupid, especially me. Please accept my apologies.

To be perfectly honest, I didn't give the selection of this T shirt enough thought. I have 3 girls, Anna, Kate and Stella. We don't see any guns in our household. I relied on memories of my toys when I was a boy (a long time ago) when life was a lot safer.

We have now removed the Sheriff gun T Shirt from sale in the US. However, as we print our catalogues well in advance you could receive another which still features the T shirt.

Thank you very much for letting us know how you feel. Keep the feedback coming; good or bad. It's the only way we can get better.

I am truly sorry.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely, Johnnie Boden



Post: 3580 NW 56th Street

Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33309

Tel: 1-866-206-9508
This companies horrible crime was selling a shirt that had a handgun on it.

This is nothing short of a victory for gun-grabbers the world over. They have finally vilified an inanimate object to the point that even an image on something is considered a social blunder. This man, spineless that he is, crawled on his knees into his customers inboxes and begged forgiveness for simply trying to sell a shirt and making money, but a shirt that "offended" some. I am honestly ashamed for him. For the fact that we live in a society that has forced him, in his own mind, to do this, and for the whimpering nature of his plea.

Going to his website it seems he has pulled the shirt off the rack. It is no longer on sell.

This is the final end of the gun grabbing lobby. They desire for everyone who has owned and enjoyed a firearm to crawl to them begging absolution for that sin. Well screw that friends.

The spineless one said this
Keep the feedback coming; good or bad. It's the only way we can get better.
GET BETTER!!!!! I am fine. He acts like firearms are a social ill, and to him they may be. But the idea that I an ill and need to get better will has never crossed my mind. Owning a firearm is not a sign of sickness or illness. It is an object that only does what a person has it do.

So feedback he wants, feedback he will get. I am going to copy this post and email it to him. He may never get to see it, but this is my feedback.
A bit of naughty humor for the day

A few years ago I was very happy. My girlfriend and I had been dating for over a year, and so we decided to get married. My parents helped us in every way, my friends encouraged me, and my girlfriend? She was a dream! There was only one thing bothering me, very much indeed, and that one thing was her younger sister. My prospective sister-in-law was twenty years of age, wore tight mini skirts and low cut blouses. She would regularly bend down when near me and I got many a pleasant view of her underwear. It had to be deliberate. She never did it when she was near anyone else. One day little sister called and asked me to come over to check the wedding invitations. She was alone when I arrived. She whispered to me that soon I was to be married, and she had feelings and desires for me that she couldn't overcome and didn't really want to overcome. She told me that she wanted to make love to me just once before I got married and committed my life to her sister. I was in total shock and couldn't say a word. She said, "I'm going upstairs to my bedroom, and if you want to go ahead with it just come up and get me." I was stunned. I was frozen in shock as I watched her go up the stairs. When she reached the top she pulled down her panties and threw them down the stairs at me. I stood there for a moment, then turned and went straight to the front door. I opened the door and stepped out of the house. I walked straight towards my car. My future father-in-law was standing outside. With tears in his eyes he hugged me and said, "We are very happy that you have passed our little test. We couldn't ask for a better man for our daughter. Welcome to the family."

The moral of this story is:

Always keep your condoms in your car.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Well it took a bit of cussing a yelling but it got fixed. Turns out it was two problems. The DSL signal was messing up and doing some strange things. We would be moving super slow, almost dial up slow, and the speed tests would say we were transferring 1.2 meg. We would then speed up and we would get a speed reading of 200 kbs. Some strange and conflicting numbers. Bellsouth finally ran us our own line to the junction box and that fixed it, but during that time my linksys power antenna had all of its setting deleted. So here we had a good signal and my computer was acting special ed. Finally figured it all out today and am back online.

I have no idea what it is with me but damned if computers and most electronics have a desire not to work for me. I can push the same buttons as my wife on something and get totally different results.

So with several people pushing LINUX I guess I will check it out. I have read that there is one that you can run off a CD so you can see if you like it before you install it. Anyone out there know where to point me to find it? I have an aversion to installing things on my computer. It never seems to run the same after new stuff is installed.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Dear HP. Burn in hell.
Dear Bellsouth. Burn in hell.
Dear Bill Gates. Burn in hell.

Not having a good computer year

Well, we are having computer problems again. This time the issue is with our ISP. They are supposed to be coming by sometime today to fix it. Keep your fingers crossed.

Monday, February 07, 2005

jcs conplan 0300 97

Lets start this post with a definition
"POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement.
So with this in mind the following story has me more then a bit bothered by the vague nature of the group and its duties.
This week, former military intelligence analyst William Arkin revealed a hitherto unknown directive, with the Orwellian name "JCS Conplan 0300-97," authorizing the Pentagon to employ special, ultra-secret "anti-terrorist" military units on American soil for what the author claims are "extra-legal missions."

In other words, using U.S. soldiers to kill or arrest Americans, acts that have been illegal since the U.S. Civil War.
The word "kill" is his journalistic license, but since this group is ill defined I would say that he may be more right then not.

JCS Conplan 0300-97 may just be the grassy knoll that draws the attention of people who see movement in every shadow and know deep down that every helicopter they hear is really black. The problem is that sometimes the shadows do move and this group most likely does fly in black helicopters.
Since Sept. 11, however, military and law enforcement agencies have worked much more closely not only to help detect and defeat any possible attack, including from unconventional weapons, but also to assure the continuity of the federal government in case of cataclysmic disaster.

The commandos here this week were the same type of Special Operations forces who are hunting top insurgents in Iraq and Osama bin Laden in the mountainous wilds of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But under the top-secret military plan, they are also conducting counterterrorism missions in support of civilian agencies in the United States.

"They bring unique military and technical capabilities that often are centered around potential W.M.D. events," said a senior military official who has been briefed on the units' operations.

A civil liberties advocate who was told about the program by a reporter said that he had no objections to the program as described to him because its scope appeared to be limited to supporting the counterterrorism efforts of civilian authorities.

Mr. Arkin, in the online supplement to his book ( /documents.html), says the contingency plan, called JCS Conplan 0300-97, calls for "special-mission units in extra-legal missions to combat terrorism in the United States" based on top-secret orders that are managed by the military's Joint Staff and coordinated with the military's Special Operations Command and Northern Command, which is the lead military headquarters for domestic defense.LINK
There are many basic ideas that we take for granted. While change is good, some should never change. The military should not be used in this manner inside of the united states.

"extra-legal". I'm going to have to remember that term.

Sunday, February 06, 2005

The voice of the people is strong(as long as they say what we like)

When people vote they are delivering a message. Sometimes it is rather confused, but it is the people speaking through the ballot box. Down through our nations history some rather delicate issues where solved at the ballot box. Many times opposite to what the politicians wanted. Leaving them unhappy. Well in Missouri we can know say some politicians are also vengeful.
Some legislation is a reaction to policy on marijuana, other legislation targets pornography. Personally, I am neither a pot smoker nor a porn patron, but that is irrelevant when it comes to my opposition to such useless legislation. All of the bills addressed here should be below the integrity of the Missouri Legislature because it is beneath the people of Missouri. Simply put, Missourians deserve better.

Senator Chuck Gross of St. Charles wants to punish the City of Columbia because voters there reduced penalties for various marijuana-related offenses. Sen. Gross, through SB 197, wants to use the power of state government to inflict targeted financial harm on one community.

In November, the people of Columbia approved two referendum issues that dealt with drugs. One decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana, provided that the person with it has a doctor's prescription. The other reduced the possession of small amounts of non-prescribed pot to a misdemeanor. This was done to protect young people from potentially losing the ability to obtain financial aid for college because a felony drug conviction erases eligibility for most financial aid programs.

In both cases, the people of Columbia did the right thing. More communities should follow Columbia's lead.

Sen. Gross, a Republican who lives in the suburbs of St. Louis, says this send the wrong message to young people, so his bill would prohibit public grade school or high school sports team from competing in Columbia. Most of Missouri's state sports tournaments are held in Columbia. Conservative estimates indicate that SB 197 would cost Columbia's businesses and city revenues over $5 million per year.
How dare the people speak their mind. Lets crush those insolent voters and teach them a lesson in real power.

So here we have another politician who feels that being a servant of the people is not enough. He must have thought he got elected judge, because he has handed down a sentence that these voters should be punished, and he is the man to do it. Political bastard that he is.

Here is some information you might want. Give the vengeful politician a call and say "Hi".

Capitol Address:
State Capitol Building, Room 227
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Capitol Phone: (573) 751-8635
Capitol Fax: (573) 751-9752
District Office Phone: (636) 949-2323

Home Address:
415 N. Second St.
St. Charles, MO 63301

Here is a summery of the bill
SB 197 - Under the provisions of this act, no elementary or secondary educational institution that receives any state funds whatsoever shall participate in any sporting event or athletic tournament held within the city limits of any municipality with certain public policies regarding marijuana. The policies specified within the act include ordinances allowing for the use marijuana for medicinal purposes or ordinances limiting misdemeanor marijuana possession fines to two hundred fifty dollars.

Saturday, February 05, 2005

Guidance for Householders

In England they are in the middle of a large debate about the role of self defense in their own household. While I see a clear cut issue here the government has muddled it beyond comprehension by their conflicting statements and actions. It is so confusing that the police have put out a brochure to answer peoples questions about protecting themselves.
HOUSEHOLDERS have the right to kill burglars in self-defence and not face prosecution, Thames Valley Chief Constable Peter Neyroud said this week.

And he reassured homeowners that the law is on their side and his officers will treat them as the victims - not the intruders.

His comments came as the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) jointly launched a leaflet called Guidance for Householders.

The advice sheet aims to redress the balance for a sceptical public which believes the law is weighted in favour of the criminal.LINK
Now there is no greater shame then not knowing if you can protect your own family and having to get a piece of paper to understand your rights. This confusion has already lead to people being hurt and victimized for years. The police and their home office has taken a stand that the people have always had the right but it is the peoples fault they are confused. The people are always to blame in a paternal governmental setting.

So here is a PDF and a MS-WORD link to the brochures if you want to read them yourself. The links are from the Lancashire Constabulary website.

Friday, February 04, 2005

I thought he had died decades ago

I am an avid reader of World War II era history. This guy was a large part of the politics in sports in the early years. I just found out he died. Wow!
One of the boxing world's most famous champions, and one of Germany's most cherished sports legends, Max Schmeling, died this week at the age of 99.

Dominating in the ring, quiet and generous outside of it, Max Schmeling won one of the most storied bouts in boxing history and praise for his quiet resistance against Hitler and the Nazis.
"Looking back I'm almost happy I lost that fight," Schmeling said in 1975, according to the Associated Press. "Just imagine if I would have come back to Germany with a victory. I had nothing to do with the Nazis, but they would have given me a medal. After the war I might have been considered a war criminal."
When the Nazis terrorized Germany's Jewish population during Kristallnacht in 1938, Schmeling hid the sons of his Jewish friend David Lewin in his hotel room. His refusal to join the Nazi party annoyed Hitler who drafted him into a Paratroopers unit and sent him on dangerous missions.

Though he fought a few bouts after the war, he was never able to repeat his success and retired in 1948 with a record of 56-10-4, with 39 knockouts. He bought the Coca-Cola franchise the same year and settled down with his wife, a Czech actress he had married in 1932. Anny Ondra died in 1987.

He became one of Germany's most generous philanthropists and even supported Joe Louis, who had fallen on tough times. When Louis died in 1981, Schmeling reportedly paid for the funeral.

"I had a happy marriage and a nice wife," said Schmeling in 1985. "I accomplished everything you can. What more can you want?"
Anyone who reads about the war has had to touch upon the subject of the 36 Berlin Olympics to understand the pre-war period better. Well a major player from back then died this week.

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Guns Gear and Ammo

Well it is time for this months shooting sweeps and I have a good group to show you.

Lets start with Remingtons monthly sweep. This months firearm is a Model 11-87™ SPS-T™ Super Magnum™ NWTF.

A firearm described as thus.
This limited edition Team NWTF autoloader is designed to help you even out the odds against those fiendishly finicky gobblers. To maximize your concealment, the Model 11-87 SPS-T Super Magnum NWTF shotgun is fully covered in Mossy Oak® Obsession® camouflage. A non-reflective, antique bronze medallion on the stock of this limited edition Model 11-87 features the Team NWTF logo.

Housed in a weather resistant, Monte Carlo style synthetic stock with sling studs and swivels and the recoil-reducing R3 recoil pad, this Super Mag features an easy-handling 23-inch Rem™ Choke barrel with Turkey Super Full choke tube included. Ideal for the lower light conditions of turkey hunt, light gathering adjustable TruGlo® rifle sights top the barrel. A matching camo padded sling is included. For every special edition Model 11-87 sold a portion of the proceeds will be donated to the National Wild Turkey Federation.
This is one per person and membership is required at their site, but it is worth it to enter.

Next is Gallery of Guns regular sweep. This month they are giving away a Springfield Armory XD9504 in 45GAP. I tried to find a link to the page with this handgun at the Springfield site but all their XD's were chambered in 9mm, 45ACP or 40. So no direct link for this handgun. Sorry.

Action: Double Action Only (USA Action Trigger System)
Stock: Lightweight Ultra High-Impact Polymer Frame
Capacity: 9+1
# of Mags: 2
Safety: Trigger, Firing Pin Drop & Grip Safety
Sights: Fixed Dovetail, Front & Rear
Barrel Length: 4.05"
Overall Length: 7"
Weight: 27 oz
Add'l Features 1: Ambi-Mag Release
Add'l Features 2: Loaded Chamber Indicator
This sweepstake is also one per person and spam free. Just do not opt in for information on the form. Their are smaller prizes like T-shirts and such, but who wants them..Right.

Now this one is a firearm listed by price only.

Gunmuse is giving away a firearm in relationship to their new site expansion. I'll let them describe it.
GunMuse the largest firearm portal in the world set to kick off the restart of their forums and free gun auctions, is giving away a $500+ rifle on their main site

(PRWEB) January 15, 2005 -- Last time we did this to kick off our forums and it worked very well. So we are going to repeat this contest. To enter is simple and free.

- You must registered with GunMuse.
- Be a legal US citizen.
- Be 18 years of age.
- Post at least 5 responses or topics in our Forum board.
- You will be entered again for every 5 posts you make. The more you post the more chances to win.

We will Give away the Rifle on March 1st, 2005 it will be worth at least $500. I will also give away 5 Embroidered ball caps.

I am telling everyone now so they can get a jump on getting Multiple entries. I am waiting on deciding what rifle until I have gone to the shot show and seen everything that is available. We will decide the model and type and let the winner decide the caliber.
So if you want to go and honestly take part in their forums then drop by and earn a chance to win a 500$ firearm.

The NRA is having a long running contest that does not end until January 31 2006. It is a one time per person contest.

I went into some detail last month on the grand prize so here is a round up of prizes.
Grand Prize: Tom Selleck's Shiloh Sharps .45-110 featured in Quigley Down Under and Browning NRA Edition safe (ARV $102,000).
First Prize: Charlton Heston Commemorative Peacemaker, six sterling silver cartridges, handmade presentation case and classic grade (ARV $13,300).
Second Prize: Lazzeroni custom rifle in Lazzeroni Long magnum cal 7.82 (.308) Warbird with Schmidt & Bender scope (ARV $7,650).
Third Prize: Winchester Deluxe Model 94 Takedown in 30-30 (ARV $3,500).
Fourth Prize: NRA Tribute M1 Garand rifle (ARV $2,895).
Fifth Prize: NRA Armed Citizen Springfield custom gun limited edition .45 Auto (ARV $1,995).
Sixth Prize: Brunton Epoch zoom binoculars (ARV $1,900).
Seventh Prize: Brunton Epoch full-size binoculars (ARV $1,550).
Eighth Prize: Zeiss scope (ARV $1,449.99).
Ninth Prize: NRA Beretta Partners in 12 and 20 gauge (ARV $1,400).
Tenth Prize: Henry Big Boy .44 magnum (ARV $750).
Eleventh Prize: Brunton 50mm Spotting Scope (ARV $599).
Twelfth Prize: NRA First Gun Ruger 10/22 .22 cal semi auto (ARV $550).
Thirteenth Prize: Bill Ruger NRA Special Edition Mark II (ARV $334).
Bonus Prizes (50 - 25 per Bonus Drawing): NRA platinum gun case (ARV $150).
That is a lot of fine rifles and gear for one sweepstake. You might have noticed that the last item listed is a bonus prize. Enter by the bonus drawing dates of 2/28/05 and 1/31/06 to have a chance to win a gun case


This is the first one on my monthly list emailed to me. Dillon Precision has an ongoing contest for some hearing protection.
Enjoy your own copy of Dillon Precision's "The Blue Press." Just complete our catalog request form and we'll send you a copy with our next mailing. By requesting a copy you will automatically be registered to WIN a HP1 Electronic Hearing Protector!

Protection Rating NRR 21
External Battery Compartment
Extra-Deep, Replaceable Earpads
Separate Volume Controls for Each Ear
TRUE Stereophonic Sound
Collapsible for Ease of Storage

Valued at only 135$ I realize how cheap mine Walmart specials are.

Shoot magazine has its semi-regular contest going again with Western theme shooting gear. Go and fill in their online survey form and enter to win a Custom-made Tequila Rig from Kirkpatrick Leather.

This setup is valued at 320$+
They even have a second prize of spurs going for 150$. Now I just need a horse.

This contest runs until May, but you can enter it every month until then.

Shotgun shells are the main prize from Lightfield Slugs. They are running a multi-month contest like such. Every month one winner is picked and wins his, or her, choice of five boxes of shotgun slugs.

When September roles around the grand prize winner is picked and they will receive a lifetime supply of slugs. So drop by monthly and increase your chance of winning a crap load of slugs.

Now remember that on most of these sweeps Winner must have a valid driver's license or proof of identification, complete an ATF form #4473 (5300.9), and pass a NICS background check to get the firearms.

So good luck and drop by next month for more firearm related contests. Like always , if you see a contest with firearm related gear please email.

Good Luck.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

The line between security and outright paranoid activity has been crossed

Laurent Garnier is a French DJ and he has decided to not tour the US because of the nature of what hoops he has to jump through.
In order to obtain this new visa, the rules have once again changed since November 2004 and I would now have to not only fill in an exceedingly probing application form, but also be interviewed by a member of the Embassy staff, and provide proof of ownership of my house, details of my bank account, my mobile phone records, personal information on all my family members and more. I consider these demands to be a complete violation of my privacy and my civil liberties and I refuse to comply.

I am horrified by these new regulations and feel really sad that this is what some call freedom and democracy.

It has now become almost impossible for an artist to come and perform in the United States. And until this new legislation changes I will unfortunately refuse to comply with this nonsense.
Homeland security. One delusional act after another.
Freedom and Democracy

Normally people use these words interchangeably in sentences. Some like me feel that they do not mean the same thing. I have had a lot on my mind with the election and the war on freedom that Bush is waging. All in the name of freedom, but somehow freedom seem to be the victim in the end.

Here is a well written article on why freedom, and what it means, can be confusing, and misunderstood, even by the ones using the words.
To clear the decks, let me say right off the bat, that freedom is NOT the same as democracy. In fact, democracy can be shown to be inimical to freedom.

The counting of heads, or the will of the majority, in no way protects or guarantees freedom. In fact, freedom can be utterly obliterated under democracy--as the rise of Hitler's National Socialist Workers Party did prove.

So let's forget about democracy, and concentrate on freedom.

I'm all for spreading freedom around the world--but before you can do that, you need to understand exactly what it is.

Can freedom be defined in one sentence, one phrase, or one word? Is it possible to define freedom in a way that will eliminate confusion?

I believe there is. The foundation of freedom is the principle of "self ownership."
We are living in a society that seems to want to control us more and more. Somehow freedom is becoming less important to some in the name of fighting the "bad guy". The shame is that a lot of the criminals created by the TSA and others are not so bad.

But at least it is done for our own good. Right?

To damn lazy

I'm a solid firearms enthusiast. I can't afford to be a proper gun nut, but I can hope. The news is filled with a solid effort to ...