Even More Blogmeat!

Y'know how, every now and then when you're surfing the web, you come upon articles that you find interesting and you want to save for later reference? Sometimes, you actually go back and read them again. Usually, though, they end up being ignored for no better reason than that there's always something new to be read.

One advantage of a personal web log ("blog") is that you can preserve them for quasi-posterity, and even share them with others. These oh-so-interesting websites thus graduate from the status of "interesting things I have read" to "BLOGMEAT!"

I keep the URL's for these websites in my 'favorites' folder (which, by the way, is HUGE!) and from time to time I share a random selection here. Some folks do this all the time, and it constitutes the bulk of their blog. But I keep them just so I can parcel them out pusilanimously, reviewing them fondly in a manner reminiscent of orgasmic dribbles, so I can share the best of the best. That is to say, even if YOU don't appreciate them, I find them fascinating.

Well, it's my blog and I can do anything I want.

It may not be The Best Of The Web, but I like it!

Top of the list today, The Geek is mentioned by Resistance is Futile! (a Eugene, Oregon RKBA Blogger) in his Carnival of Cordite #3. (Note the link to this website on this sidebar.)

The Los Angeles Times sucks up to the Dear Leader (or whatever he demands to be called) in a recently blogged-to-death article titled North Korea, Without Rancor. Didn't we forgive CNN for proselytizing Sodom Hussein for the sake of "access" in such a manner last year?

From New Scientist:

The US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed. But pain researchers are furious that work aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon. And they fear that the technology will be used for torture.

Malaysia News Online introduces a five-year-old boy who walks, runs and plays with other children his age even though he is no bigger than the stuffed toys I give to my grandchildren.

Arizona Central, one of my favorite news sites, quotes USA Today in describing the latest ID Theft problems of ChoicePoint. This kind of data-abuse affects even such blogosphere luminaries as Andrew Sullivan. We're all vulnerable to this abuse of confidence, and it doesn't matter who you are when the ID coyotes raid the chicken coop.

"Working For A Change" offers sage advice on how to "Argue Like A Conservative".
(NOTE there is no link in the sidebar for this website. We'll show you how to argue like a Liberal!)

The San Diego Union Tribune , offers a poll which opines that:

A majority of Mexican migrants living and working in the United States would be willing to participate in a temporary-worker program, according to a recent nationwide survey, even many of those who say they would prefer to stay in the country indefinitely.

Uh, well ... yes. Considering that this includes a large number of 'migrants' who are in the U.S. illegally, it stands to reason that they would be in favor of a 'temporary-worker program", since this might legitimize their illegal residence in the United States.

More on this later, in a subsequent essay on migrant workers in Oregon.


"Bootfinder" is a new system being used in Conneticut to randomly search automible license plates and match them with 'tax delinquets'. When a car is found to belong to an owner who has not payed all current taxes due to The State, then The State knows where to find ... and confiscate! ... the car.
Big Brother is not just an Orwellian fantasy. He's alive, and well, in Connecticut


Oh. You're already familiar with Orwellian fantasies? Well, it is about to come to the Web.

FEC to extend campaign-finance to Web
Commissioner warns of threat to blogs, online punditry

Be afraid.
Be very afraid.

Annual Credit Report

Here's something really scary:

If you haven't checked your credit rating lately, it might be a good idea to do it now.

You can get a FREE credit rating from three different companies, right now in real- time online, for the low-low price of (have I mentioned this already?) FREE!

A recent federal law requires credit-reporting services to make this available to you, once a year, for free.

This is especially important if you are thinking of making a MAJOR CREDIT PURCHASE!

you can get this report from a number of websites, by the way.

What do you need to accomplish this?
If you want to receive the TransUnion report at least (the most extensive of the reports I reviewed, and regularly priced at $29.95) you need at least four identifying pieces of information. They can be anything among the following:

• A revolving charge-card (Macy's)
• A credit card (visa)
• A previous residence address, which may go back as much as 10 years
  

Yup. That's right ... four items of personal identification in three categories.
If you're like me, you will have to scramble for some of this stuff. For example, I had to dig out documentation which listed my address in 1992, and my car-payment which I had paid off last year.

You'll have to decide whether it's worth the effort, and if you want to know your "Credit Score" it will cost you another six bucks, too. (I didn't pay it ... I don't anticipate a major purchase, such as a new house, in the immediate future.)

The good news is (a) you can get the results immediately, on-line; and (b) the price is free Free FREE!

Also, the credit companies do have a plan to get money from you, but it's always an opt-in process. That means that if you choose not to receive their mailers, it's usually a painless process.

Did I mention that it's Free?

Get The Lead Out

My friend, Randy S. (who provided the incentive for my last post) included another RKBA related "heads up" which deserves some mention. Thanks to our mutual friend Bobby W. who informs us:

Rep. Ruth Kagi (D-32) finally filed her lead shot tax bill. The bill imposes a $0.24 PER OUNCE excise tax on lead shot, either loaded in shotshells or bagged for reloading. That's a $6 INCREASE in the price of a box of 25 shotshells at one ounce per shell, or $7.50 a box for 1 1/4 ounce loads. A 25 pound bag of lead shot will carry an additional $96 charge. Oh, don't forget the sales tax increase because of the increased price at retail. That $0.50 tax on a box of reloads at the trap range just went up to over a dollar.

The excise tax collected will be deposited into a new "wild swan recovery account." Sounds like it's going to be party time for swans!

And, the bill contains an "emergency clause." That means the tax takes effect the minute the governor signs the bill. No time to stock up on shot or shotshells.

The bill has been referred to the House Finance Committee.

Oregon (where I live) is one of the very FEW states in the Union which doesn't have a Sales Tax. Kagi is a state senator in Washington State.

A reading of recent bills introduced in Washington shows that this bill (HB2211) was introduced Feb. 23, 2005.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2 (1) A tax is imposed on the privilege of handling toxic shot for sale in this state. The rate of the tax shall be equal to twenty-four cents per ounce of toxic shot. Fractional amounts shall be taxed proportionately

This followed another bill introduced by Kagi and refering to the subject of "Toxic Shot" :

HB1822 - Read first time 02/07/2005. Referred to Committee on Natural Resources, Ecology & Parks.
The bill includes the following verbiage:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3 A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW to read as follows:
(1) Beginning January 1, 2006, it is unlawful to possess or use toxic shot on any land owned by the state that is located in department game management units four, five, or six.
(2) Beginning January 1, 2007, it is unlawful to possess or use toxic shot on any land owned by the state that is located in department game management units one, two, or three.
(3) Beginning January 1, 2008, it is unlawful to use toxic shot when hunting with a license issued by the department under chapter 77.32 RCW.
(4) A violation of this section is a natural resources infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW.

Brief Summary of Bill

Phases out over the next three years the use of most shot ammunition that contains lead.

Essentially, Kagi intends to make lead-based shot illegal in the state of Washington.

"Toxic shot" means shot ammunition, either packaged in shells or loose, that contains more than one percent lead, by weight.

In the meantime, she's going to tax the britches off anyone who uses lead shot. Consider this in incentive provided courtesy of your friendly neighborhood politico.

Well, a lot of states are working toward this end, and it's not an entirely 'bad thing' except for the innefficiency of steel shot in making a humane kill of game birds.

Bismuth doesn't seem to be any more dangerous to use than lead.
And apparently it's widely available.

Of course, copper-plated lead shot costs $25.99 for an 11-pound bag, and bismuth shot from the same supplier costs $104.99 for a 7-pound bag. Let me see: $15/lb for Bismuth, $2.27 for copper-plated lead. That only costs you $12.73/lb more to shoot bismuth. Figuring a 1-1/2 oz. charge per shot it's a mere fourteen cents per shot difference in price.

Don't miss.


Are we seeing a trend here? Perhaps. Read on.

This Kagli-sponsored bill was preceded by another RKBA bill sponsored by Kagi:

HB1627 - introduced January 31, 2005
(Digest:)

Declares that no person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon conversion kit, except as authorized by this act. Any assault weapon or assault weapon conversion kit the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale, or other transfer of which is prohibited under this act is a public nuisance.

Provides that no person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of the following: (1) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and

(2) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition.

This is a LOT simpler than the complicated Oregon Senate bill introduce by Ginny Burdick.

It doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to the firearm; it simply states that if it is capable of accepting a magazine of more than ten rounds capacity, and it is accompanied by such a magazine .. it's an"Assault Weapon".

I have to admit, it's elegant in its simplicity.

No less egregious, of course, but at least it's easy to understand.

I haven't figured out yet what enforcement is likely to ensue. Burdick's Law stipulated that possession of an "Assault Weapon" was a Class-B Felony. I presume that Kagi's Law relies on a body of law which is conveniently applicable at will, which means that nobody really KNOWS what kind of trouble you could get into, in Washingon State, if you owned a S&W Model 59 and a 12-round magazine.

Oh, okay, I'm being facetious. If you read the text of HB1627 (link above) you will see that Kagi's Law is essentially the same as Burdick's Law. The difference is that instead of requiring a "Permit", including the serial number of the "Assault Weapon" as Burdick stipulates, Kagi specifically requires "registration".

At least she's more honest about it

As if that helps.

Relating to firearms; and declaring an emergency.

BAD GUN! GO TO "THE HOT PLACE!"

A member of the Oregon State Senate has authored a bill which would define and outlaw "Assault Weapons" in Oregon. The link to the bill synopsis, including details, is included in the title.

This bill is from State Senator Ginny Burdick. It is a massive list of banned guns. It also outlaws magazines larger than ten rounds and requires a police issued "permit" to continue to possess the semi-auto rifles and shot guns you already own and bans "transfer" of the listed firearms even to your children.

I've been told that Senate President Peter Courtney will control whether or not this and other anti-gun bills move forward. He can be reached at:
sen.petercourtney@state.or.us
503-986-1600

(Hat Tip to, and quote from, Randy S.)

There are a couple of ramifications to this bill which Randy didn't mention in his email to me and to a number of Oregon people who are interested in Practical Rifle.

First, the permit which he mentions is structured similarly to the Oregon Carry Concealed Handgun (CCH) license, except that it refers to the simple possession of an "Assault Weapon" , not to carry or usage.

Second, the Assault Weapon permit includes the description and serial number of the firearm. This is de facto registration. Why is this worthy of mention? Well, the New York State Assembly recently introduced A03371, a bill which rescinds permission to own even 'grandfathered' registered Assault Weapons, as I noted a few days ago.

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:                              
                                             
To  repeal  the  grandfather  clause in the definition of assault weapon
which currently allows the possession of an assault weapon if the weapon
was lawfully possessed prior to September fourteenth,  nineteen  hundred
ninety-four  or  if  the  weapon  was  manufactured on of before October
first, nineteen hundred ninety-three; to provide for the  surrender  and
destruction of such weapons.  

(All italicized quoted text in this letter is 'emphasis added')
The "permit" is only the first step to confiscation, which New York is now attempting in bill A03371:

Section  2 Paragraph one of subdivision a of section 265.20 of the penal       
law is amended to provide that all assault weapons must  be  surrendered       
to  the superintendent of the division of state police within 15 days of       
the repeal of the grandfather clause.                                          
                                                                               
Section 3 Section 400.05 of the penal law is  amended  to  provide  that       
assault  weapons  surrendered after the repeal of the grandfather clause       
will be declared a nuisance and be destroyed. 

Randy's reference to "guns you already own" is a 'grandfather clause', in the sense that the current owner of a firearm on the extensive list is not considered a Felon for simple posession IF he/she has applied for, and been awarded a permit in the "shall issue" process.

We see, from the New York example, how politicians respect the efforts of honest citizens to comply with this kind of legislation.

You may note that the context of the NY bill doesn't describe a 'buy-back'. It is simple confiscation, without compensation of any kind.

The proposed Oregon bill gratuitously includes an exception to the "possession" charge if the firearm is "lent" ...

  (b) At an exhibition, display, or educational project that is
about firearms and that is sponsored by, conducted under the
auspices of or approved by a law enforcement agency or a
nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in
or promotes education about firearms;

The supposition is that you can handle an 'assault weapon' at a gun show, as long as that show has been authorized by some official agency; however, since you would not be allowed to BUY it the weapon could not be offered for sale without turning both the seller and the would-be purchaser into a Class-B Felon. Make no mistake, this is not a "gun show loophole".

I can hear you saying:, "Hey, Geek! This has nothing to do me, I don't own an 'assault weapon' and I probably never will. I don't care, one way or another."

Wrong.
If you own ANY semi-automatic pistol which is fed by an external magazine ... you may be a Felon.
Here's one definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the Oregon bill:

(D) A pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable
magazine and any of the following:
  (i) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor,
      forward handgrip or silencer;
  (ii) A second handgrip; or
  (iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel that allows a person to fire the weapon
without burning the person's hand, except a slide that encloses
the barrel.

If you own an IPSC Open-division pistol with a compensator, and the compensator is not an integral part of the barrel (as is the case in a large number of 'older' Race Guns), the compensator is probably screwed on. Which means that you are screwed. Even if your Race Gun is an STI, they only began making the compensators as an integral part of the barrel a couple of years ago.

Do you feel REALLY paranoid? Then you'll like this clause defining other sorts of Felons:

  SECTION 3.  { + Any person who manufactures or causes to be
manufactured within this state, who imports into this state or
who offers, exposes for sale, sells or transfers an assault
weapon in this state is guilty of a Class B felony. + }

The questions here are, first, does "exposes for sale" include someone in another state who offers for sale an "Assault Weapon" on an internet website? Can this law make Bushmaster a potential Felon for displaying their product on their website even if they have no intention of selling it to anyone in a state where it is specifically forbidden? I don't know. Do you? Stranger things have happened.

The other question is, suppose you own a firearm on the banned list, and you have applied for and received a permit. What happens when you die? Your wife, your children, arguably can't even TOUCH the firearm without becoming, by the act of touching it, "in posession of it". Does this sound far-fetched? Remember the clause cited above, which carefully makes an exception of touching an "Assault Weapon" at an "exhibition" which has been held "under the auspices of" an outside authority before you call me paranoid. Under the strictest interpretation of the law, your widow would have to call the polilce and have them come to your house to take the firearm out of the gun safe. If she takes it out of the safe, and she doesn't have a permit, she's breaking the law if she just carries it to the police station to turn it in after your death.

I don't believe that most people would consciously understand all of the implications of this law, and how it could make criminals out of honest people.

I DO believe that some politicians in my Blue State understand them, and would feel no remorse if an Oregon citizen accidently fell afoul of this most foul law.



I've already written to my state senator.

(Find out who represents you here.)

If you're an Oregon resident, you should take Randy's advice and contact your state representative (senator) to tell them that this is a BAD law which has no redeeming features. It addresses an issue which has nothing to do with reducing "gun crime" ... it only expands the definition of crime and will only affect honest citizens.

And there is no "emergency".

IMAO: Who the Hell Do You Think You Bloggers Are?

IMAO: Who the Hell Do You Think You Bloggers Are?


Accountability.

That's what I'm talking about.

Frank J., of IMAO (does anyone know what this acronym stands for?), asks some tough questions. Lots of people are trying to answer them. I'm not sure I have good answers myself, so here's my off-the-cuff responses to ...

THE "WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?" BLOGGER QUIZ

1. Who the hell do you think you are?

Who, ME? [squeak!]
I'm Jerry the Geek. Father, Diplomat, Soldier, Blogger, Computer Programmer, mediocre IPSC competitor, writer of Geek-Length Posts to The Unofficial IPSC List. Defender of the truth (as I see it), opininated, obnoxious, intrusive, argumentative. Fearless warrior in defense of my mom, writing letters to the judge to get out of traffic tickets, and pumpkin pie!

Okay, so I lied about the "Diplomat" part.

2. So, other than blogging, what's your job? Do you work at some fast food joint, dumbass?

Well, not this week. By day I'm a Systems Analyst for a blue-state University; by night I'm the scourge of the hell-room (the upstairs bedroom where my computer sits amid piles of paper and overflowing ashtrays. Damn! I have GOT to clean this mess up.)
But all of that may change, if my friendly neighborhood Democratic governor can't get a handle on the state budget, and I mean like Real Soon Now! He's still pissed 'cause we voted down his tax measures last November and ... well, you know how that goes. I'm back on the street, looking for another job. Do you know, is Burger King hiring?

3. Do you have like any experience in journalism, idiot?

Uh ... I took a couple of journalism courses in college. Does that count?
No? Okay, then I don't.
BUT!
I DO "Have An Opinion" on almost any topic, whether or not I know anything about it. I figure that makes me roughly equivalent to Maureen Dowd, anyway.
And I read Best Of The Web almost every day, so I know what Opinions are suppose to look like.

4. Do you even read newspapers?

Did I mention Best Of the Web?
And of course, there's World Net Daily, which I also read ... uh ... daily.
Well, then, I get a check-off in this category, right?
Okay, so I don't read newspapers. Considering that all the major papers in this blue state are heavily lefty slanted, I'm not missing much. Still, I read their web version; I'm hardly likely to actually BUY their defeatist rags, am I?

5. Do you watch any other news than FOX News propaganda, you ignorant fool?

Actually, I don't watch news programs on TV. My television isn't even hooked up to a cable. I just use it for watching old movies on video tapes and DVDS. However, I DO watch TV at my girlfriends house on weekends, but about all we watch is old movies, cheesy house-renovation shows (I hate that!), disfunctional families building motorcycles, and Monk.
I haven't had cable TV since Crossfire went off the air.
Could be worse. I could be watching CBS news every night, and wearing a big ol' lapel pin stating "Dan Rather is GOD!"

6. I bet you're some moron talk radio listener too, huh?

Well, I would be if we could get any decent radio reception down here in the gulag. Unfortunately, all we get at night is Doctor Laura, and during the day I'm sitting at my computer at the office and do you realize how hard it is to get decent AM Radio reception when you're surrounded by LAN Workstations?
I admit, if I could get the local station, I would be listening to Rush, Michael Reagan, Sean Hannity (he of the cheesy grin) and Larry Elder every day!
But not that loudmouth Michael Savage. Anybody want to put up a big-money bet on which of these talk radio shows is available locally?
So, when is the NRA going to start up a talk radio program?

7. So, do you get a fax from the GOP each day for what to say, you @#$% Republican parrot?

No, my fax machine is broken.
(Actually, I don't even HAVE a fax machine. I'm just saying that so people think I'm important enough that someone, some day, may want to send me a fax. The truth is, I get all of my GOP instructions via email.)

However, I did receive some beautiful photos of GW and Laura Bush during The LateUnpleasantness (the 2004 Presidential Campaign.) They wanted me to send them money. I didn't. Do you have any idea how much it costs to rent the Lincoln Bedroom on a weekend night? Oh, but you do get a discount if you rent Thursday thru Monday. I bet you didn't know that.

8. Why do you and your blogger friends want to silence and fire everyone who disagrees with you, fascist?

Huh? Are you KIDDING? You cheeky monkey, if it wasn't for the people who disagree with me, I wouldn't have anyone to talk to at all.
Fortunately, almost everyone disagrees with me, so I have lots of people to talk to.
The bad news is, they don't want to talk to ME.
Maybe I ought to open that unused bottle of Scope. Do you suppose that would help?

9. Are you completely ignorant of other countries, or do you actually own a passport?

Actually, I'm cheerfully ignorant of other countries. How many of them are there, and should I be concerned? Why?

I don't own a passport ... never needed one.

The only 'other' countries I've been to are Canada, Mexico, Taiwan and VietNam.

In three of those countries, someone tried to pick a fight with me. In the other one, they just took my money. Perhaps my reputation preceded me, but I don't think these are good reasons for me to visit, although I kind of liked Taiwan. The folks there seem to have a good grasp of the Capitalist Principles by which I live.

10. Have you even been to another country, you dumb hick?

Are you paying attention? What kind of a quiz is this, where the only way to win is not to play? As our lawyer friends (do lawyers have friends?) say: "asked and answered".
You didn't realize ... no, forget that. I'm not going to make excuses for you, Frank. Just stick to the script, okay?
And remember, I HAVE been to Vietnam. If 'things' had broken the way they should, I might have been president today. Then I wouldn't have to answer your inane questions and embarass myself in public, in a vain play for attention from the sort of people I would never have as guests in my home.
(Well, I would have them as guests in my home, but I'm a terrible housekeeper and what if they wandered into my Hell Room ... the home of Marlboro Cigarettes and Jamesons Whiskey. We wouldn't see them for weeks, and eventually it would smell worse than it already does.
I wouldn't like that. Wouldn't be prudent. And it would be all your fault, Frank J.

11. If you're so keen on the war, why haven't you signed up, chickenhawk?

Hmmmm ... let me see:
(1) I'm 60 years old
(2) I could kick your butt, Frank, so don't start on me!
(3) Been there, done that, didn't like it 'cause they were rude to tourists.

12. Do you have any idea of the horrors of war? Have you ever reached into a pile of goo that was your best friend's face?

Yes, I did. It was in Viet Nam in 1970. We had just left the NCO club in Cu Chi when my friend suddenly retched, fell over on his side, and rolled onto his back clutching his belly. I fumbled in the dark to see what was wrong and ... I ... put ... my ... hand ... on ... his ... FACE!

Oh, the horror!

It was entirely covered in vomit.

After that, we kinda backed off on the twenty-five cent hard liquor drinks, ya know what I mean. At least, until the next night.

13. Have you ever reached into any pile of goo?

Well, the next night we went back to the NCO club. This time, I was the one who fell down with vomit all over my face. My friend was too plastered, so I had to put my hand to my own pile-of-goo face. Not a pleasant experience, I tell you.

War is heck.

14. Once again, who the hell do you think you are?!

Who dat who say 'who dat'?

Shards of Honor

Our friend, Harold the ("Ah-CHOO!") Barbarian, joined us at an IPSC match today at the Dundee Practical Shooters range in Dundee, Oregon.

One of the stages featured a lot of Pepper Poppers and IPSC Targets hidden in a veritable forest of plastic barrels. Harold discovered that there was a 'sweet spot' which allowed him to engage all targets from a single position ... if he just sorta leaned to the right so he could see the last Pepper Popper.

We think he leaned too far. Maybe he just missed the shot. Either way, he hit the rim of a target-obscuring plastic barrel and BLEW a piece of it off!

The six-inch "shard" flew off, and sliced into an adjacent IPSC target in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Kahn. No, the Range Officer did not give him credit for the C-zone hit. Missing a golden opportunity for "The Perfect Squelch", he also failed to ask: "Do you feel lucky?"

BTW, the title for this post comes from a Lois McMaster Bujold novel, the first of the Miles Vorkosigan series which I am currently rereading for the 3rd time.



http://photos1.blogger.com/img/8/2516/1024/DSC_0140-1.jpg

.357 Magnum Flashlight

Our friend Wadcutter posted this a couple of days ago, and it's just too -- trick -- to be ignored. If you don't read Cutter frequently, you may have noticed the link on any of several other RKBA websites.

For those among you who are "good with your hands" (I am not), the article includes complete and detailed materials and construction specifications. While you're at it, buy two of everything and make one for me, will you? I'll provide the .357 Magnum brass. I have a bunch of it laying around, some of it even new/unprimed.

Super Senior! (ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!)

As of today, I am no longer eligible for awards in the Senior Category.

I suppose it had to happen sometime. I console myself that growing old(er) is not so bad, considering the alternatives.

But I'm thinking, why did it have to happen NOW! Now that I'm finally figuring out how to play this game. Now that I finally have accumulated good equipment that works reliably, and I no longer am handicapped by my gear. Now that I have the leisure time, and sufficient disposable income, to afford to shoot regularly.


My once-skinny frame (I'm six feet tall, and when I got out of the Army in 1970 I only weighed 126 pounds) now has a prominent bulge above my belt, and the waist-line is now AT my hip-bones, not ABOVE them. My eyes are becoming increasingly short-sighted, so the iron sights of a pistol are just a grey blur. I tire more easily, I lose energy in hot weather, I'm generally weaker and my endurance ... didn't endure.

Okay, so I'm whining. I should be grateful for all of these things I just listed, that I have my health, that I live in a great country which recognises my right to participate in shooting competitions. I know that.

Unfortunately, one thing I don't have is talent. We see some people who compete in IPSC matches and they seem to just fly through the stages. They have the coordination and the natural ability to move quickly, hit the targets, and make it look easy.

Me? I have to work at it, every time. It has taken me over 20 years to learn how to shoot IPSC with some small degree of competence.

I do have a few arrows in my quiver.

A few years ago I took a one-day shooting class from Travis Tomasie. He taught me to take just a LITTLE more time on double-taps and save time on indexing between targets. He taught me how to move into a shooting position and out of it again without wasting time. Other lessons improved my reloading speed and reliability, grip and trigger-control, and the best way to 'dope' a stage. The main result of these lessons was that I learned how to save time on a stage without sacrificing accuracy; eliminate unneccessary movement, and use every tenth of a second productively. One of the most productive lessons was learning to call my shots.

I moved from Limited to Open class, where the electronic dot-sight minimized the loss of visual accuity. This also allowed use of a compensator which saved time between shots, and the 'big-stick' magazine which eliminated some reloads in most stages.

The chances are that I'll never shoot much BETTER, so I'm learning to shoot SMARTER. Frequently, there are ways to shoot a stage that cater to my presonal strengths. Seeing these opportunities is necessary before I can take advantage of them, so I've put a lot of time into analyzing each stage before I shoot it.

I can still shoot on the move, call my shots, and when necessary shoot over the top of the slide instead of looking for a sight on hoser stages. (At a match last weekend I turned my dot OFF so I wouldn't be distracted by it when engaging a dozen very close targets. I got mostly A-hits, but was penalized on a string of pepper poppers backed by a fat no-shoot ... which I dinged.)

Brian Enos's "Practical Shooting - Beyond Fundamentals" is at my elbow as I write. I've read it several times, and will continue to re-read it because it provides valuable reinforcement of the skills I know I have ... but sometimes during the excitement of a stage I forget about them and try to go faster than I can shoot accurately.

On days when everything is working together and I'm focused, everything is easy and without effort. It's the days when I start out already tired, or work too hard in non-shooting activities (resetting moving targets, RO-ing) or I'm otherwise distracted that I make a lot of foolish mistakes. I still need to learn to pace myself. I need to husband my strength instead of trying to do my job plus the work that others can do.

But you know what? I still love this game.

I find that I have just as much fun on days when every stage falls into the toilet as I do when everything clicks. I enjoy the opportunity to be outdoors, to spend time with my friends; the old chums as well as the new friends I hadn't met before. It means a lot to me, that I can spend a day at the range with SWMBO making loud noises and slaughtering innocent sheets of cardboard.

Yep, the years have taken a lot away from me. But they have given me rewards that I would never have imagined before.

And sometimes I can pass on some of the techniques and tips I've learned over the years to some of the young men and women who are new to the game.

Watching them grow, and learn to love the game, is probably the best reward of all.

Maybe growing old(er) gracefully is just another new lesson for me to learn.

I'll work on that.

Goblin Count Updated In Virginia

Coalfield.com

SANDLICK - After being shot in the leg and scared that he and his wife would would be killed by the two men who had held them hostage for two hours as they ransacked their home, Clyde Colley decided to defend his life and home, investigators say. Now, one Kentucky man is dead and another is in jail on a long list of charges. Colley, 84, is in Dickenson Community Hospital recovering from the gunshot wound.

Kim du Tuit would appreciate this.

<>

< style="font-weight: bold;">Mrs. Colley answered a knock on her door that night to find Sexton standing outside it, said Hall. After showing her the gun he carried, Sexton allegedly forced his way into the home, then used a walkie-talkie to notify Howard he was inside.

Mrs. Colley told police Sexton was wearing a toboggan when she answered the door. When he entered the home, however, he pulled it over his face and she saw it was actually a ski mask. Hall said Howard then entered the home, his face also covered by a ski mask, and began ordering the Colleys around, telling them to get on the floor.

Wearing a "Toboggan"? Obviously, this has an entirely different connotation in Virginia!

During their ordeal, the elderly couple was reportedly held at gun point by one of the intruders while the other went through their home and vandalized it. At some point during the vandalism, Sexton allegedly shot Mr. Colley

No 'justification' for this shooting is proposed in the bare-bones article, but you can go read the whole thing ... maybe you can make more sense out of it.

Here's the "Money Quote"

When officers Scottie Owens and Brett Stallard arrived at the Colley home, they found Hubert Howard Jr., 39, of Letcher County, Ky., dead from a gunshot wound to the head. Police say the shot was fired from a .38-caliber special that belongs to Colley.

It's not clear how this happened, given that the original article said:

Hall said Mr. Colley told investigators later that he knew he and his wife were in grave danger, and he also knew where he could get to a gun in his home.

So he told the intruders he wasn't feeling well and needed to sit down. The elderly man was then able to get to his gun and fired a shot at Howard, said Hall. That shot missed, so Colley fired again, this time wounding Howard, according to Hall.

So what's the REAL story?
Apparently, Howard was 'wounded', but later died from his head wound.

And what happened to the other assailant, Sexton?

Sexton is charged with two counts of robbery, two counts of abduction, two counts of burglary, maliciously shooting with intent to kill, use of a firearm while committing a felony and unlawfully shooting Colley in the commission of a felony.

The really GOOD news (besides that the score of Victims: 1.5, Goblins 0) is that since someone died during the felonious assault, the 'accomplice' may be subject to charges of "murder during commission of a felony". This ups the score to Victims: 2, Goblins 0.

This is A Good Thing, and just might provide future wannabe Goblins in Virginia with cause to rethink their plans to assault Old Virginians.

I don't have an AK, as does Kim, but it's clearly time for someone to perform the Happy Dance!

USPSA Ohio Section Classifier Percentage Calculators

UPDATE: 14 April, 2008
This link is obsolete. see here for the current link.


USPSA Ohio Section Classifier Percentage Calculators

Hat Tip to Normie:
"Flex" provided this URL, which allows you to enter your hit-factor and division to determine your probable National ranking on USPSA Classifier Stages. I've tried it, and the results were within a few hundredths of the actual position assigned by USPSA.'

You can give it a try, and perhaps discover how you are likely to be seeded based on your Classifer scores ... before USPSA gets around to publishing the current results.

Or, you can use it to hypothesize how quickly you need to complete a give Classifier stage, given a ssupposed degree of accuracy.

Whatever works for you. My experience is that this handy tool is surprisingly accurate, and it helps to answer the question: "What IS the Top Score for this classifier?"

NY Bill A03371 - Gun Grabbers Get Greedy

NY Bill A-3372

The New York assembly entered a new bill which will make ALL "assault weapons" illegal to possess as of January 1, 2006.

Adds semiautomatic rifles, shotguns or pistols or a replica or a duplicate thereof manufactured on October 1, 1993 and semiautomatic rifles, shotguns or semiautomatic pistols lawfully possessed prior to September 14, 1994 to the definition of assault weapon; provides for the superintendent of the division of state police to accept surrendered assault weapons; declares such assault weapons surrendered a nuisance.

Why did they do this?

To repeal the grandfather clause in the definition of assault weapon which currently allows the possession of an assault weapon if the weapon was lawfully possessed prior to September fourteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four or if the weapon was manufactured on of before October first, nineteen hundred ninety-three; to provide for the surrender and destruction of such weapons.

No, I mean WHY did they do this!

As nearly as I can tell, the NY assembly decided that, since the Feds allowed the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) to sunset, as it was originally intended to do if/when events demonstrated that it failed to serve its stated purpose of reducing crime and violence, their efforts to enforce a demonstrably ineffective law were justified because ... well, because they are empowered to arbitrarily make laws abridging the constitutional rights of their citizens.

You may think of this as the logical extention to absurdity of the "state's rights" movement.

I don't know enough about the background of this movement. I assume that some years back they enacted a state law which banned some 'assault weapons', but accepted others, base upon the year of manufacture.

You may recall that California enacted a similar law several years back, which required that 'some assault weapons' were permitted but the owners of these 'assault weapons' were required to REGISTER the firearms. Later, California decided to outlaw these allowed-but-registered firearms as well. Since many of them had been registered, the state had a handy list of "who had what" and it was easy to determine whether all previously legal 'assault weapons' had been turned in.

As far as I can tell, there is no provision in the proposed New York law to reimburse owners for their confiscated property. It seems to me that California at least paid a few cents on the dollar for the cost of the firearms, though I may be wrong.

Can anyone tell me whether these New York 'assault weapons' had been required to be registered? Is this, as it seems, a simple confiscation augmented by a state Registration list?

"Black Code" of Mississippi

(Laws of Mississippi, 1865)

How do I talk about this?

I'm sure we have all been vaguely aware of periods in our nation's history when we haven't treated all of our people as they should have been treated. The term "Manifest Destiny", for one, conjures up the image of arrogant usurpation of the rights of an entire people.

And "Slavery" ... specifically, "Black Slavery" ... is now universally accepted as one more egregious period in our history.

Perhaps you are aware that, after the Civil War, some states enacted statutes to deny Black Americans the freedoms which they had (supposedly) won as a result of this war. Certainly, those of us who are particularly involved in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms movement (RKBA) have heard that during the immediate post-war period, some states enacted laws specifically designed to deny " ... freedmen, free negroes, and mulattoes ..." the RKBA freedoms enjoyed by other citizens.

However, if you are as ignorant as am I, you had no IDEA that these statutes were only a part of a larger, more intrusive and all-encompassing set of laws which evidenced a conspiracy to keep these people in a state of virtual slavery, regardless of the intent of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

Thanks to a recent Dave Kopel article in Reason magazine, I have finally read the entire set of "Black Codes" enacted in 1865 by the state of Mississippi.

I have mentioned the "Manifest Destiny" examples of Native Indian abuse, such as the Trail of Tears , the Seminole Indian wars, and the Massacre at Wounded Knee.

But I have never before had cause to feel such shame at being an American.

Now I know what this national shame feels like, and I can tell you that it turns my stomach.

Besides forbidding " ... freedmen, free negroes, and mulattoes ..." the right to " .... keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife ....", these other restrictions were singularily applied:

• they may be sued, but they were not permitted to rent or own land outside of a town
• any black who may 'intermarry' a white person would be sent to the penitentary .... for life
• all labor contracts with a black for more than one month must be in writing, and the black who quits before the end of the contracted period would forfeit all wages for the entire period
• any black who quits a contract is subject to arrest, described as a 'deserter', and may be returned to his 'employer ... or otherwise disposed of ..."
• anyone who entices a black to quit this employment is subject to fine and payment of court costs; any black who quits this employment may not be provided " ... any food, rainment, or any other thing ..."
• black orphans can be forceably apprenticed to " ... a suitable person ..."
• masters of these apprentices are specifically permitted to inflict " ... moderate corporal punishment ..."
• " ... all rogues and vagabonds, idle and dissipated persons, beggars, jugglers, or persons practicing unlawful games or' plays, runaways, common drunkards,' common night-walkers, pilferers, lewd wanton, or lascivious persons, in speech or behavior, common railers and brawlers, persons who neglect their calling or employment, misspend what they earn, or do not provide for the support of, themselves or their families, or dependents, and all other idle and disorderly persons, including all who neglect all-lawful business, habitually misspend their time by frequenting houses of ill-fame, gaming-houses, or tippling shops, shall be deemed and considered vagrants"
  
• adult blacks, with no lawful employment or business, or "living in adultry or fornication" are subject to arrest and fine
• blacks found to be, among other offences, "... committing ... seditious speeches, insulting gestures languages or acts ... exercising the function of a minister of the Gospel without license ... [or] ... vending ... liquors ..." is subject to fine and/or imprisonment
  

Whuf!

If these acts were applied today to ALL Americans, I would be in jail and in debt for the rest of my natural life, since the day I turned 18, if only for the "mispend what they earn" clause!

Chickenhawks

Gothamimage: Mattis/Boykin2008! - A Republican Draft Challange

Generally, we've managed to avoid purely political comments. We're a little proud of this, because we exhibit restraint in so few situations. But although this blog was originated to, among other purposes, discuss 'political' issues, there aren't a lot of reasons why we should move away from the primary IPSC Competition theme.

Okay, all that's over. We found something 'political' to talk about, and it isn't even about RKBA issues.

But it is, vaguely, about military issues, so maybe it's still okay. Even if it isn't ... it's my blog and I can rant if I want to.

Our new chum "WhisperingCampaign" is a NYC blogger with whom we have shared a couple of comments on blogtopics. He's much more polite in his comments (we castigated Warren Burger; he suggested that Dems oughta lose the 'Gun Control' issue) than we are (he said something positive about Senator Kennedy; we suggested thatTeddy was a lady-killer of the first water).

But while browsing his archives (he blogs "GOTHAMIMAGES", as a New York City guy) he made a comment that touched a long-dormant Geek-button.

He used the term: "Chickenhawk", in reference to President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

Here's the context (go to the original link, above, for the whole rant):

Some people really love killing, if provoked, no matter how.

It's true, and it's been that way for all time.

Do you think Bush likes killing?

Ask Carla Fay Tucker's family. Ask Tucker Carlson , the conservative writer.

Ask those others, whose loved ones did not receive a serious review, much less DNA review, in capital crimes.

Ask anyone who saw him smile and giggle when discussing executions during his first debate with Gore.

When Cheney smirks and burps up phrases like, "take 'em out," what emotions is he tapping into?

You know damm well - maybe the frisson of killing.

So why settle for a bunch of sissy chickenhawks.

Both Bush and Cheney were afraid to fight.

Bush and Cheney are chickenhawks.

The defining link looks like this:

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

The term is a deliberate canard.
The definition itself, while an attempt to define in the general sense, has been used by the Liberal Left as a catch-phrase to depict the Bush administration as being unconcerned about waging war because, never having been personally involved in combat, members of this administration are serene in their ignorance of the effects of war on those who are directly involved.

As if to say: if you haven't fought in a war, you are not qualified to justify committing your country to war.

Let's look at this in the historical perspective of World War II.

One of the great heroes of the Liberal Left is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who committed America to war in 1941. Roosevelt was never a serving member of the military, he certainly never did "see combat", but he declared war on the people who staged a sneak attack on American soil and American people. He also declared war on their allies, their friends, their families, and everyone the fanatical Japanese knew or cared about. He had no qualms about authorizing the fire-bombing of Dresden.
His vice-president (Truman), who assumed the burden of the war effort after Roosevelt's death, was willing to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The Liberal Left, apparently, are Down With That.

Maybe it is acceptable because Harry Truman, after all, had served as an Artillary Captain in WWI. Certainly, we don't hear anyone protesting that Harry was a "ChickenHawk".

On the other hand, nobody is calling Roosevelt a "ChickenHawk", either.

Why is that, do you suppose? After all, Franklin (fifth-cousin of a President) was a rich white guy, an Ivy Leaguer, one of the "Effete Elite" as Spiro Agnew might have said. Why is it okay for him to declare war on a Global basis, while it is apparently NOT okay for Bush (son of a president) to declare war on a single nation after a similar sneak attack on American soil, American people?

Why is Bush, who did serve in the military, a ChickenHawk?

Is it because he wasn't called to active duty?

Here's the punchline: it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter whether a President, or his Vice-President, has ever served in the military.
It doesn't matter whether they have gone to war.
It doesn't matter whether they have 'seen the elephant'.
The chances of them successfully prosecuting a war, to the resultant advantage of the Nation which they have been elected to lead, are approximately the same.

Our country has been established with a careful regard for the difference between political leaders and the military.

Our political leaders decide whether to go to war.
Our military leaders decide how to fight the war.

When this guideline is violated, Bad Things Happen.

Should the Military leaders decide when to go to war? That didn't work out well for Japan in 1941-1945. General Tojo and his military cronys pushed the Japanese Emperor into war; it wasn't a priority for the Emperor of Japan!

Should our political leaders decide how, when, where and whether to fight the war? That didn't work out well for America in VietNamin 1961 - 1973. Kennedy (a Democrat ... with personal combat experience) might possibly have handled that better than did his successor Johnson, or HIS successor Nixon?

Nixon ... a Republican ... was a 'ChickHawk" too. He never served. Johnson, on the other hand, had a GLORIOUS war record! He was the first member of congress to serve in WWII, entering as ... a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy. (No 'Cronyism there!) He was obviously well-qualified to lead our nation in the continuing conduct of the VietNam War, because he (a) served in the Navy, in a War Zone (for 8 months ... more than Kerry!) and (b) he won a Silver Star ... under 'questionable circumstances.

Johnson didn't start the Vietnam War, but he was the Vice-President of the man .. Kennedy ... who arguably DID start the war. Here we have two ... TWO! ... senior members of a White House administration who were, for one reason or another, decorated veterans, and they got us into the first war that America ever lost. Somehow, we don't think this proves the efficicacy of Military Veterans as War Presidents over non-veterans.

Perhaps it's better that our country should go to war based on political reasons, with the advice of military people.
Perhaps it's better that our political leaders NOT be encumbered by personal combat experience. After all, Truman (the Captain of Artillary) led us to war in Korea in the 1950's. Do you remember that war? Do you realize that, legally, America and North Korea are still "at war" as we were 50 years ago?

Surely, all of these Dead Presidents... Truman, Kennedy, Johnson ... who had 'war records' could have been a reliable justification for the implied 'wisdom' that there is an advantage in having a veteran for a 'War President'?

And perhaps, if we diddled the record enough and ignored several historical facts, we could make this point advantageously.

But it STILL doesn't really seem to matter in the long run, does it?

Military Experience doesn't make a great War President; it doesn't even make a great President. Witness U.S. Grant, and D.D. Eisenhower. These two great Generals were total failures as peace-time presidents. Their skills were the ability to make war; they couldn't HANDLE Peace. (Eisenhower was more fortunate than Grant, in that the social problems he faced ... or ignored, as the case may be ... were less immediate and vital than those which Grant was unable to resolve.)

In the long run, the term 'ChickenHawk' doesn't seem to have any meaning at all. A Leader who faces the decision whether or not to declare, or fight, a war realizes NO advantage or disadvantage from either personal military experience or the lack of it.

The term 'ChickenHawk' isn't a meaningful description. It's a catch-phrase. It's a political device intended only to demean the qualification of a President to lead his country. Its sole purpose is to undermine the legitimacy of the incumbent president, and his staff, so that the party out of power can gain some small measure of political power by comparison.

It's a low, mean, underhanded bit of legerdemain, and the only purpose is to weaken the country which is the home of the people who use it.

I have no respect for the people who use this petty phraseology. They contribute nothing to the national survival, their only interest is to find political advantage at the expense of those who are trying to actually DO something to protect the country.

Mr. Bush's decisions may not be those which the Democratic Party would have chosen, but in the four-plus years since the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (and a lonely field in Pennsylvania) were subjected to airborne attacks by a bunch of insane fanatics, the Democrats have still failed to provide an agenda which is a feasible alternative to the Bush doctrine, which is:
Take the battle to our enemies, fight them on foreign soil, and if possible improve the lot of the people there who have suffered from non-democratic thuggery.

If a man who wants to protect our nation, and in doing so rid the world of thugs, can be so cavalierly labeled a 'ChickenHawk', then I will continue to vote for the ChickenHawk Candidate every time.

It works for me.

Chief Justice Warren Burger & RKBA

I remember driving through Oregon on secondary hiways, on my way to hunting grounds, and seeing wayside-billboards (often crudely painted) stating:

Impeach Justice Warren Burger!


(This is WAY after the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards, which I understood had to do with his Civil Rights ... Brown vs Board of Education, and Row vs Wade ... leads. I understood that stuff, whether or not I agreed with them. Sometimes, I did!)

I never understood why anyone would want to impeach a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of America, until I read this article which he wrote in regards to:

The Right To Bear Arms

A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation

By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4

With the benefit of 35 years of experience, and absolutely NO legal training, I think I'm prepared to discuss his concept of what the 2nd Amendment really means. Not what I think it means ... but only what HE thought it means>

Commencing now:

Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.

Interestngly, Burger ignores the fact that DC forbids its citizenry to defend itself with firearms, a situation which was almost unique (except for Chicago and New York City) during this period .... and which, somehow, continues even now.

<>Of course, Great Britain hadn't yet adopted such draconian measures, which may explain the cmparison between DC and "Western Europe".

The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.

This is all non-sequitor comments. There is a large body of original and supplemental commentary establishing the intent of the constitutional framers. Almost unanimously, these comentators voiced the opinion that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide for defense against an oppressive Federal Government ... a concept which conveiently (for his unstated agenda) is never here addressed by Burger.

People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, ...

This apprehension is again seen today. Burger glosses over this original apprehension, and thus implicitly suggests that it is somehow reprehensible. His very words support, probably without noticing, that the apphrehension is justifiable.

... and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men;

Here, Burger is vague (actually, not forthcoming) about "the purpose of the Second Amendment." At this time he makes no obvious effort to define or interpret it. However, he subtly expands his hypothesises of a relationship between the 2nd amendment and fear of a "monster" government, although he resists the not-so-obvious attempt to define it here. It's just 'verbiage' at this point.

However, he manages to slip into the monologue the idea that a 'standing army' should consist of no more than 840 men.

Consider that at the time of the First Congress, the population of the United States was probably about (or less than) one millioon people. Currently, the population is in excess of 250 million. Extrapoplating arithmetically, the appropriate size of an American standing army must be assumed to be about 220,000.

My understanding is that there are about 140,000 troops in Iraq now, which leaves. 80,000 military not accounted for. Distribute that number among the military in Afghanistan, residential 'home guard' troops such as Coast Guard, Ready Reaction Troops, uncommitted Air Force, Marines, troops in training etc. and we can probably derive a Standing Army committment which is very much in excess of the 840 troops deemed necessary in 1779.

What has this to do with the Second Amendment?
Not much, except that Burger falaciously provides a NUMBER of active troops which on the face of it seems absurdly low compared to current staffing, and only SUGGESTS that it has a bearing on the 2nd amendment because of reasons which he presumably will later present.

Read on ....

Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison's proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:

"to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ... Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins."

We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word "because" was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the "state militia" serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago

Suddenly, Burger presents the "militia" as being a "state militia". He does not provide any justification for presuming that the terms are interchangeable, but he does encourage the reader to presume the equivalency. If one presumes that the "National Guard" is a "State Militia", and a "State Militia" is equivalant to a "Militia", many of his subsequent arguments may seem to be reasonable. However, he has failed to prove (or even to attempt to prove) the equivalency.

Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns -- rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols -- with all firearms, including what are now called "Saturday night specials." There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons."

===========

We need to become accustomed to undocumented, unwarranted (excuse the expression) assumptions, because this document is based on them. Here are some more;

Without always actually saying so; using nothing more than cleverly applied inuendo, Burger:

• equates " ... rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols ..."
• equates them with "Saturday night specials."
• states unequivacably that handguns are not "sporting arms"
• asserts that " Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative";
• asserts the equivalencty between " ... automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons.

Perhaps it should be mentioned here, for the first time (although surely not for the last time) that vehicles are both licensed and regulated, and their operators are licensed and regulated, because vehicle operation is commonly assumed to be "a privilege, not a right". In fact, this is specifically stated in the Motor Vehicle Handbooks of most states. On the other hand, posession of firearms as NEVER been identified as a 'privilege'; whenever referenced, it is considered to be a "right". This is probably the crux of the argument for both sides, because the sides of the Gun Control argument is most commonly defined as the diference between a 'privilege' ... which can be taken away capriciously by the stage ... and a 'right' ... which is constitutionally protected.

Let's look at the history.

First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English.

Another non-sequitr, as the 2nd amendment has never been seriously defined as the right to hunt.

Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.

No argument there.

Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling

This is an egrigious attempt to establish that there was no legitimate (or plebian) justification for possession of a 'pistol', which term doesn't mean the same thing today as it did then.

In the 18th century, a 'pistol' was a handgun. A firearm without an extended stock, and with a short barrel. The terms here are in themselves misleading because the 'pistol' of that era was typicallyl a single-shot 9per barrel) flintlock or percussion-cap firearm with an over-all length of from 18 inches to two feet.

The issue STILL isn't about possession of firearms, in Burger's worldview. He is attempting to fix the reader's mind in the understanding that "rifles are good; pistols are bad". If his argument was consistent, ALL firearms would be regulated by the State, not just 'pistols'.

Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.

There is still no justification for equating a "well regulated militia" with " a state army."

<>

In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.

Burger's pont here seems to be, again, reinforcement of the equivalency of the term "militia" with "a state army": that is, the National Guard.

<>

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that.

But this is precisely what Burger is doing all though this opinion.
<>

Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.

Again, the 2nd amendment does not, nor was it ever intended to, justify possession of firearms for the purpose of hunting. The terminology is never mentioned in the 2nd amendment. He extends his argument to equate hunting (without establishing that he is doing anything more than defending hunting) with fishing. Also, he continues to compare the ownership and usage of motor vehicles with the ownership and usage of firearms. The 2nd amendment is not about the right to hunt game; it is about ".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms ...".

Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.

Now he is not only comparing the right to keep an bear arms (which can only be revoked for felonious cause by a court) with the privilege of owning and operating a vehicle (which can be revoked for cause by a magistrate); he even equates it with the right to own a bicycle, or a dog!
Had this man so little regard for the rights of the citizenry, that he compares it to dogs? Apparently so!

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit? These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
   

1. Not necessarily, but the courts have consistently ruled in this vein since Burger's tenure.
2. A 10-day waiting period is just something that Burger cooked up in his own fevered mind.
3. Again, the right to own a firearm is not, and has never been, the same thing as the PRIVILEGE to own and operate a vehicl.
4. We are seeing now that the concept of a "ballistic fingerprint", although it is the rant-de-jour for liberal gun-grabbers, is neither scientifically feasible nor econimically advantageous.
   

I very much regret that Warren Burger is dead.

We should have impeached the son of a bitch while we had the chance.

Yahoo!

Can it be true?

Omigod!

Can Yahoo! News be ... pandering to prurient interests on it's World News website?

Please GAWD! Let it not be true!

Oh. Well, maybe.

Surfing the Internet tonite, we wandered through the "Most Popular" website and found the following tittilating (expression advised .... which means we really shouldn't but can't resist the temptation) selection of 'news' stories whose content ( and usually, photos ) belie the idea that Yahoo! News is really about NEWS?

(1) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez .... talks with people who were affected by flooding in Araira in Miranda state, about 50 km (31 miles) from Caracas, Venezuela, Saturday, Feb. 12, 2005, after floodwaters receded following a disaster that has left at least 15 people dead. (AP Photo/Miraflores, Marcelo Garcia)

Our dear friend Marcelo Garcia has managed to capture a poignant picure of Hugo speaking to a young Venezuelen (presumably) constituent who just HAPPENS to be nursing a child, and in the process just HAPPENS to have her left breast comfortably flopping out of her low-cut bright red dress.

Quick test: can you find Hugo Chavez in the picture? Time limit: 10 minutes. No cheating!

(2) Think Ink, Not Mink
In this photo supplied by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), tattoo-resplendent former NBA star Dennis Rodman appears completely nude in a celebrity anti-fur ad by PETA.The ad made its debut at New York Fashion Week.(AP Photo/PETA)

The ever-hot Dennis Rodman (the conservative spokesman for always-correct deportment) is featured here in PETA's continuing all-nude-all-the-time advertising campaign designed to ... what? Demonstrate the difference between humans and animals? You be the judge, if you dare.

Here's the good news: Our Hero Dennis is not REALLY nude. It appears that he has a generous selection of tatoos.
All .. over ... his ... body.

But don't forget the message?

"Be comfortable in your own skin, and let animals keep theirs!" -- furisdead.com

Subtle, yet effective. We can say without fear of contradiction that this is one pelt we don't want to see displayed on OUR trophy wall!

(3) Christina Aguillera discusses her marital schedule with a convention-hall full of sweaty, overweight businessmen ... American pop star Christina Aguilera (news) has got engaged to her longtime boyfriend, Jordan Bratman, People magazine reported on February 12, 2005. Aguilera acknowledges the applause at the end of her display for Dsquared2 Spring/Summer 2005 men's collections during Milan Fashion Week, June 29, 2004. (Daniele La Monaca/Reuters)

Here Yahoo! News has generously provided the opportunity to keep up to date on the question All America has been asking itself: how is Christina getting along with her boyfriend ... ol' WhatsHisName?
(WTF is a "Jordan Bratman?)

Pay no attention to the Boobs behind the Bustier.

(4) Will Smith completely forgets his marital status for just a moment, really ... Actor Will Smith (L) kisses a Brazilian Carnival reveler as actress Eva Mendes (R) looks on during the Carnival champion's parade at the Sambadrome in Rio de Janeiro, February 12, 2005. Carnival in Rio is famed as one of the world's greatest parties. REUTERS/Bruno Domingos

You can tell that Bruno and Reuters are terribly concerned that we all be aware that "Carnival in Rio" is famed as "one of the world's greatest parties."

We have no idea why. (Though we're certain it is newsworthy.)

Certainly it couldn't be because of the scantily clad "Brazilian Carnival revelers".

"Pay no attention to the man behind the .. .er ... "scantily clad Brazilian Carnival reveler".

(5) Actor Tom Sizemore Fails Drug Test with Fake Penis; he couldn't get a broad if he rented a billboard displaying full-frontal nudity. Church attendance soars while millions of Angeleans chant "Thank You JESUS for sparing us! NOW says: "There's nothing new here, men have been lying to us about their penis for years."
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Actor Tom Sizemore has been jailed for violating his probation by failing a drug test after he was caught trying to use a prosthetic penis to fake the results, a Los Angeles County prosecutor said on Friday.

Sorry ... (NOT!) ... No pictures here. Just a 'news' article, obviously offered to help us common folk keep track of Poor Ol' Tom's continuing story of defending himself against governmental interference in a man's personal battle to defend himself against unreasonable judicial edicts to keep himself ... er ... "clean and sober".

Also, presumably, "straight".

Is this like a "blow-up" doll? Only, different?

Gawd, we hope nobody answers this question in the Comments!

(6) ... Male Genital Snow Sculpture Shocks Drivers! DNA tests prove that this is a "Whizzinator" product registered to Tom Sizemore.
GLEN AUBREY, N.Y. - An explicit six-foot-tall snow sculpture depicting male genitals in a yard on a rural road north of Binghamton had some drivers doing a double-take this week.

My, my, my. A "double-take".
One for each ... uh ... never mind.

Again, no pictures.
We're not saying that pictures aren't available, and we're not saying they are.
We're just saying, if pictures WERE available, you wouldn't find them here.
Why?
Because it's OUR blog, and we wouldn't have to link to them if they were, presumably, available.
(Surely even Yahoo! News has to draw the line somewhere.)

(7) ... Defaced Bush Face; I swear that this is not Tom Sizemore's missing "Whizzinator" ... Police look at a defaced poster of U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites), while environmental activists protest against Essso's alleged lobbying of the U.S. President to refuse to abide by the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites). With the pact on climate change set to take effect, the Bush administration still rejects it as too costly for the US economy and based on questionable scientific hypotheses(AFP/File/Gerry Penny

Okay, just so this doesn't have to be ALL T&A All the time, here's an article which clearly doesn't appeal to Pruruent Interests.

Also, the AF" news source obviously doesn't have any political reason to provide a photo and accompanying caption which (a) makes the incumbent American President look like a dork, or (b) suggest that his decision not to ratify the Kyot0 Protocol is A Bad Thing.

(8) ... Just to show that Yahoo! News isn't All About T&A, or "Whizzinators" either! ... Goldie Hawn (news), right, and Kurt Russell arrive for the British Academy Film Awards in London Saturday, Feb. 12, 2005. (AP Photo/John D McHugh)

We guess there may be some female flesh in this picture; but trust us, this is an ugly picture and you do NOT want to go there!

Whew!
That's a relief.

(9) ... Woman Denies Sherry Enema Charge .... HOUSTON (Reuters) - A Texas woman indicted last month for allegedly giving her husband a lethal sherry enema said he was an enema addict who did it to himself, a newspaper reported Thursday.

That's the way he went out and I'm sure that's the way he wanted to go out because he loved his enemas," she told the Houston Chronicle.

File this under "Shit We Would Really Rather Not Know About!"
Oops! Sorry.
We're pretty sure that this was not only an unfortunate choice of words, but also shit (oops!) we don't even want to THINK about !

We guess we were confused.

Our conclusion (based upon ... nothing much) is that Yahoo! News photo policy does not intend to present provocative photographs over bland, null-value captions for the express purpose of arousing prurient interest. This is a responsible news-oriented venture designed to tell us all about news which is ... well ... news.

How could we have been so wrong?