Hump Day is Blog-Meat Day!

I've been VERY proud of myself lately.

For several weeks I've managed to post content-specific articles without once resorting to "blog meat" specifically. (For the uninitiated, the term "Blog Meat" refers to an article which contains a lot of links to articles and events which I find generally interesting, but doesn't necessarily have a single cohesive theme.)

This is the kind of article which is typical of diary-type Web Logs ("blogs"), and I usually consider it a lazy way of blogging for people who don't really have anything to say. But for someone who spends as much time as I do using the internet as a primary information source, its tempting. Very tempting.

Tonite we have a mish-mash of articles I found interesting, incidental information that I would share, and stuff I just want to say.

Let's get started:

House Approves Move to Outlaw Flag Burning
I don't like this.
Sure, I'm a conservative kinda guy, but the idea of putting some weirdo in jail because he burns a flag in the streets just strikes me as wrong.
Sure, I was in the army. I fought for causes my country thought were right ... in Vietnam we fought the "Domino Theory" , to keep other countries from falling to "Godless Communism". What I thought we were fighting for, though, was to prevent other countries from falling to oppressive governments.

This business of making a holy icon out of the national flag goes too far when it results in jail-time. The ACLU is not my favorite people, but they serve to make us really THINK about what we're doing. They say flag-burning is protected under the First Amendment, and in this case I think they're right.

If you want to burn a flag, that's your business. I do suggest that you don't come to MY house, tear down MY flag and try to burn it in MY street, because I'll kick your ass. But that's just me, exercising My First Amendment freedom of expression. I don't need no stinkin' Constitutional Amendment. I got your amendment right here, pal.

- - -

The other day I mentioned Pro-Gun Bloggers in the PNW. One of the people I mentioned was Rivrdog. He was kind enough to write back and tell me that I missed the fact that he has more than one blog going, and he specifically mentioned Paratus, which he typifies as "The How-To and Why-For of Preparation for Conflict".

Being a curious kinda guy who uses the Internet to learn things I never knew before, I moseyed over (moseyed ... is that a real word? Well, it is now) to Paratus and started reading.

I'm not done reading. This guy has threads to threads, and they're so darn well-written that I can't finish one before I switch to the next. I'm like a kid in a candy shop when the counter-man steps out for a smoke; I grab a handful of this, and before I can head out the door I see some other goodie and I go back for a handful of that. The analogy breaks down (as all analogies must) when I realize that I don't have do drop any of THIS to get some of THAT ... it's all there, just waiting for me to get around tuit. Basically, it's SHTF (translation: "Shit Hits The Fan") stuff that we don't really expect to ever need, but ain't it kewl to know this stuff?

Makes me want to type faster, so I can get back and see what else he has to say.

- - -

Fight or Pay your Parking Ticket
What a concept. A website that promises ... no, GUARANTEES! ... it can prevent you from having to pay your parking ticket.

I'm not silly enough to provide the information they require to thoroughly research this website. But if you get a parking ticket, I strongly encourage you to use this website to fight it, and send me a report on how much you saved by fighting it 'their way' vs just paying the freakin' ticket.

As the DemocRats are so fond of saying ... Move On!

- - -

Speaking of DemocRats, Dick Durbin now has a new nickname: Dick Turban.
While I think his original comment was shocking egrigious a partisan piece of shit, I don't think the Republicans are advancing their cause by these sophomoric tactics of name-calling. I know the DemocRats are trying to show the Bush administration in the worst possible light with their tactics (I don't for a minute think that Durbin is acting on his own), and the Republicans are trying to show how ugly it would be if THEY used the same tactics ... but ultimately, the Reps ARE using the same tactics, and the whole thing ends up looking like a bunch of spoiled children squablling in a sandbox, you should excuse the expression.

If these politicos don't quit fighting for bragging rights, and start working together, you and I will suffer the consequences. This BS is tearing the country apart. We can't afford such dissension.

The closest we have ever come to a 'popular' war was WWII, where our country was clearly attacked by an aggressor nation. Now we have been attacked, but the aggressors can't clearly be clearly associated with a national entity. (Afghanistan was an easy target, but getting rid of the Taliban obviously didn't remove the threat.)

Where we go to counterpunch? How do we respond? How can we put pressure on the people who attacked us?

I didn't like it when Bush attacked the political leadership of Iraq, but I think I understood what he was doing, and why.

He (Bush) moved the focus of conflict from the American soil, and goaded the Islamist Extremists to attack us on THEIR ground, where every American who was a target was armed and trained. We've suffered grevious casualties ... every American killed is a tragedy, but we've lived through that before ... and the CIA may be right when they say that IRAQ has become a training ground for terrorists.

Fine. Bring 'em on. We have seen that we will have to fight them somewhere. Better in Kabul than in Kansas City. We've suffered casualties before in the fight against aggression. We don't like it, but sometimes it is necessary.

In the meantime, getting back to Dick Durbin, we have a bunch of terrorists in Guantanamo who are NOT fighting us. Good place for 'em, I think.

- - -
Finally, for the coup de gras ...

Family: Bush's America killed loved one

A 53-year-old Arizona man died this month due to the stress of "the stolen election of 2000 and living with right-winged Americans," according to a death notice published by his family.

Corwyn William Zimbleman, of Tucson, was an accomplished artist, the notice said, and an "avid atheist, he studied the bible [sic] and religion with more fervor than most Christians."

The notice then reads:

He had strong political opinions and followed Amy Goodman's radio broadcast "Democracy Now." Alas the stolen election of 2000 and living with right-winged Americans finally brought him to his early demise. Stress from living in this unjust country brought about several heart attacks rendering him disabled.

I have so MANY punch-lines here, I'm bleeding out of my mouth from biting my tongue.
Why should I inflict such pain on myself? Here's a list of possible responses, you choose the one that works for you:

• He has gone to a better place; there are no right-wingers where he's going ... either way.
• It's WORKING!
• If only we could get rid of the Far Right, this would be a perfect socialist country
• My nose precedes me by 15 minutes. (Sorry, that's a quote from Cyrano de Bergerac)
• If you thought Bush was bad, how did you survive Reagan?
• When did obituaries become a political forum?
  
• Is this a Leftist-thing?
• We hope that his bible studies prepared him for his Final Exam.
• Maybe Amy Goodwin's listeners will pray for him. Oh, wait, that's not gonna work.
• One down, 58,999,999 to go.

But wait, there's more!

In another politically charged death notice, the family of 71-year-old Sally Baron, who died in 2003, reflected her apparent disregard for the president.

The Aug. 21, 2003, notice in the Capital Times of Madison, Wis., stated:

Memorials in her honor can be made to any organization working for the removal of President Bush.

An article in the Capital Times the same day as Baron's death notice said her children had no question she would approve.

"She thought he was a liar," Baron's daughter, Maureen Bettilyon, said of the president. "I think his personality, just standing there with that smirk on his face, and acting like he's this holy Christian, that's what really got her."

Joe Baron said his mother "just didn't trust that a big corporate guy was going to be doing what was best for her. She just really didn't trust him."

Well, you know, these "holy Christians" are ... wait a minute, he's "a big corporate guy".
Was he 'a big corporate/Christian guy' to her, or what? Did she object more that he was a "Christian guy' or that he was a 'big corporate' guy, whatever that means.

Apparently, even her own children didn't know her.

Are you surprised?

Neither am I.

Anti-Gun Campaigner gets screwed

Scotsman.com News - Latest News - Anti-Gun Campaigner Attacks 'Heavy-Handed' Police

See, here's one of many reasons why Pro-Gun people hate gun-control laws. It doesn't matter how well-intentioned you are, sooner or later the anti-gun laws will turn around and bite you in the rear.

In Scotland, a long-time anti-gun campaigner talks a gangbanger out of his gun. (Don't ask how, just suspend disbelief long enough to accept the basic premise, okay?)

Said Anti notifies the Scots police that she has a gun, and wants an amnesty deal to turn it in.

The Scots police wig out and tell each other "Omigod, Anti has a gun in her closet. Let's bust her arse!"

Well, what did she expect?

“They took my house apart searching it and even arrested my daughter.”

The mother of three said she called police at around 1.00am on Saturday to report interrupting an attempted burglary at a neighbour’s home.

She said she told them she had the weapon and invited officers to collect it.

Mrs Eccleston said she was given the gun by a young gang member she refused to identify and kept it, while awaiting a police weapons amnesty.

When police arrived she was taken to Longsight police station where she was kept overnight in a cell.

She said: “It is disgusting. How do the police expect people to feel comfortable handing in guns when this is what happens to someone known as being against gun violence.”

She was released on police bail until August 18 while forensic tests are carried out on the shotgun.

Her son, who was also known as Marcus, a 24-year-old father of two was shot seven times at close range in Chorlton-on-Medlock, Manchester, in October 2001. The gunman has never been caught.

When they arrest Anti for possession of an Evil Gun, Anti gets all bent out of shape because ... after all ... they should have realized that her intentions were good.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing the cops. I just think that Anti got what she deserved asked for, the reaction she has been campaigning for all these (four) years. It's a double-edged blade (illegal in the UK).

Do you think she will have learned anything from this experience?

Naw, I don't either.

IPSC in Oregon: June, 2005

Last Sunday I attended an IPSC match at Tri County Gun Club (TCGC) in Sherwood, Oregon.

This is notable for four reasons.

First, for some reason I was ON. It was probably the best performance I have ever turned in, and at my age probably the last time I will ever shoot as well, in the 22 years I've been competing in IPSC.



Second, I managed to catch a couple of great snapshots of SWMBO.



Third, SWMBO was running the camera when one of the competitors ("Fish") got hung up on a spike which was used to fix a obstacle (a plastic barrel) to the ground, and he took a tremendous spill. Thanks to years of practice, Fish managed to keep the muzzle pointed down-range and finished the stage with an excellent time, considering that he spent half of it rolling in the dirt. (Sorry I can't find a host for the *.MPG file.)



Fourth, it was only FIVE stages instead of the usual SIX stages. TCGC is in the midst of a major restructuring of their range ... blowing up rock outcroppings, making over their bays and expanding their parking lot in readiness for the Columbia Cascade Section (CCS) Tournement. They only had five bays available, so the match was a lot shorter. Perhaps this explains why I did so well, as we had 83 competitors (as opposed to the usual sixty-some) and we had a lot of sitting-around time between stages. Plenty of time to rest up.

Maybe this is why this old man managed to look good in the final standings; I often run out of steam before the last stage, and this time they took OUT the last stage.

I say, let's have some more five-stage matches.
Okay, so let's not say that. I like shooting, and the more I get to shoot, the better I like it -- even if I don't do as well.

(I'm a liar, I LOVE shooting a hot match well!)


Man, I sure wish you could have seen it. It was a good match with a good mix of stages.

Did I mention that I did good?

Pro_Gun bloggers in the PNW

I mentioned the other day that I planned to support other Pro-Gun Bloggers in the Pacific North West.

I received in return a very nice note from Mr. Completely, who mentioned some other Pro_Gun Bloggers (note the differnence in terms: replacing the hyphen with an underscore is a deliberate action, the purpose of which is not clear even to me) .

I've only had the opportunity to take a cursory look at these blogs, but I've included them in the sidebar for your personal evaluation.

I'll include a few comments here, just so you'll have the (dubious) advantage of my own initial impressions. Don't put too much importance on what I say; I would rather you form your own opinion. I hope you'll spend a little more time than I expect to spend, late on a Sunday night, but these small summaries may serve to at least adquaint you with the general tone of each blog. I won't bother to put the links in this article; they're all available on the sidebar.

The first (presented in no particular order) is GullyBorg, of "Resistance is Futile!" He's a law student (pre-law?) in Eugene, Oregon. He is the sometimes host, and the originator of the Carnival of Cordite. Every Friday, he or some alternative host provides links to the RKBA-applicable article most highly prized by the author, all over America. This provides a delightful cross-section of pro-gun information which is often more inclined toward a humorous look at the Shooting Sports, but very often includes some serious RKBA commentary on legislation, etc.

Next (as a courtesy) is Mr. Completely. His blog features a template which is as butt-ugly as mine ... in fact, he uses the same blogspot template as I do. You gotta like him, right off. He presents an eclectic mix of photos, references to GullyBorg & the Carnival of Cordite, thought-provoking questions, bitching about blog-relates software, legislation, personal observations, and whateveryouwannatalkabout. One of the best recommendations I can cite is that he claims to have "... shot at Custer ...", which implies that he plays the IPSC game. Best of all, of all, of all ... he has a lot of links to HoserCam. Anyone who is impressed by Nolan Smythe is okay in my book.

Jason's Blog is more introspective, more like the traditional format of a personal diary. He talks about his high-school reunion in Tumalo, and goings-on in Seattle. Likes Skeet & Trap. He has been blogging for over 3 years, which beats my unimpressive 7-month tenure so he must be doing something right.

Random Nuclear Strikes is an obvious fan of Benjamin Franklin, as evidenced by his inclusion of "Don't Tread On Me" flags in his masthead. (O'Shea, don't make something of this term which isn't there!) He seems to be a rifleman by inclination, has posted for over three years, and isn't afraid to talk about legislation in Washington. Funny, isn't it, how legislation introduced in Washington seems so often to be mirrored in Oregon ... most frequently by the awful Ginny Burdick? Recently, he has talked about the egrigious Kos, Gulags, PETA, Cops in Canada, 80's music, and a miscellany of popular topics. Displaying a creative collection of photos to illustrate his subject, you can usually find something startling to start your morning.

Rivrdog (no clue about why he has eschewed the obvious "e", but I bet it makes a good story), tends to be more ... ah ... SERIOUS about his choice of topics. Though they're often humorous, there's an underlying message of alarm running through it. (Apologies for dated pop-culture references here.)

For example, in a recent post he suggests a similarity between he Holloway Aruba situation, and the Jon Benet Ramsey case. It would never have occurred to me.

He includes refs to MJ and OJ, to the OSU Beavers winning, and a deep and thought-provoking discusion of Liberals and Genocide. Sure, he'll tickle you with Oregon issues and pop culture, but he'll turn right around and stab you in the heart with RKBA-based articles that will make you sit up and say ... huh?



I haven't mentioned Brian, from ARPC, who isn't regularly 'blogging' in the generally accepted sense. However, Brian is the webmaster at the Albany (Oregon) Rifle & Pistol Club and usually manages to include his personal observations when describing IPSC matches at the club. If and when Brian decides to generate a regular blog which he wishes to include here, he'll appear on the sidebar as well.

There's a reason for including a new sidebar-entry which links to PNW (Pacific North-West) based bloggers.

I think we can provide a much richer mix of perspectives and information-based discussion of the issues by providing a cross-section of observations region-wide. My hope is that you are encouraged to visit other forums/blogs, see what THEY think is important, and gain a broader viewpoint by benefiting from their evaluation of what is the important issues of the day.

The usual reason for providing links from one blog to another is that the other blog will reciprocate, and will improve your OWN traffic. Nothing wrong with this; if we didn't think we had something significant to say, we wouldn't be spending evenings sitting in our pajamas in front of a computer, chipping away at the Main Stream Media (MSM).

But there's more to it than trying to go one-better over the MSM. Those "real" reporters will write one or two poorly researched articles, and then their editors will tell them "get me something new" and they're off on another subject.

Bloggers don't do that. They get their teeth into an article, and they blog the sh*t out of it. We saw it right here in the article about BB-guns not being acceptable to the Mass. Science Fair because they (BB guns) are dangerous.

Bloggers get the bone between their teeth, growl like junkyard dogs, and spend an inordinate amount of time demonstrating that there is something rotten in the information you're getting from 'other sources'. Dan Rather saw that happen to him. John Kerry hates the Swift-Boat Veterans becasue of that. Other examples are easy to find.

We don't expect that THIS 'harmless blog' is going to have the same international impact as these examples, but maybe if you have ready access to a number of regionally related sources you can find the best examples of perspective on a number of issues which affect you, personally.

So much for the 'cross-polinization' reason for linking between regional bloggers.

The best reason, and perhaps the truest, is that these people represent a group which have intersting things to say, and I want to share their collective wisdom with you.

No, that's a damned lie.

Really, I want to get them involved as a group, and see what happens. If nothing else, maybe they will allow us all to get to know them better, and perhaps someday they'll show up at a local shooting match so we can ALL meet & greet them.

I just think they're an interesting group, and if I play my cards right I could meet them all and spend some range time with them.

What do pro-gun bloggers talk about when they meet on a range?

I figure, they just put as many rounds down-range as possible in the time available, and have a helluva good time.

That's what I'm talkin' about!
zzz

IPSC Rules Question: How Many Penalties?

Last weekend I attended an IPSC match.

Nothing new in that; I compete in IPSC matches at least three times a month, year-round.

However, I've been paying more attention to the way individual stages are designed lately. I've observed that the current rules aren't always clear about what a competitor can and cannot do while shooting a stage. I've paid particular attention to the penalties which accrue for infractions of the stage procedures.

Specifically, I'm concerned about infractions which incur a "Per-Shot" penalty, as opposed to those which incur a "Per Occurrence" penalty.

During the match last weekend, competitors were required to engage targets through a low port, which essentially required them to assume a prone position. A shooting box was placed behind the port, and they were admonished in the published stage procedures to remain within the shooting box while engaging the targets visible through the port.

Here's how it should have looked, from the perspective of a bystander:




A few of the competitors, for whatever reason, lost track of the (fully legal) fault lines which comprise the shooting box, and had a foot OUTSIDE the shooting box.

A controversy arose as to whether they should be penalized for "per occurrence" violation of the stage procedures (one 10-point penalty) or "per shot". This last ruling would have exacted 8 procedural penalties, for shooting two scoring hits per each of the four IPSC targets visible from that port. The difference in the ruling would be ten points penalized or eighty points penalized, so you can imagine that the discussion was vehement.

The rule book states:

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground beyond a Fault or Charge Line will receive 1 procedural penalty. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage while faulting, the competitor will be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting, instead of a single penalty. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting a line.

I won't confuse the issue by revealing how the Match Director ruled on this question. Instead, I will pass it on to you.

How many penalties should have been applied in this situation?

(NOTE: this is not a test. Until the National Range Officer Institution [NROI], in the person of the Chairman of the NROI, has ruled, there IS not right answer. I'm just interested in what YOUR decision would have been. Please quote applicable rules.)

(NOTE 2: Okay, so maybe this IS a test!)

PNW Bloggers

Adding a regional element to this Blog, I've decided to begin adding "Bloggers in the Pacific North West" (PNW) to my sidebar.

If you are a blogger in the PNW, or if you know a blog which promotes RKBA & the shooting sports, and whose host lives in the PNW (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana ... any other suggestions?), please email me at jerrydgeekblogs at aol dot com and I'll take a look.

I'm especially interested, of course, in Oregon bloggers. I've not included range-related websites as they aren't blogs, and besides I've already included most of those of which I am aware, either directly or as links to links I've included.

Blogs which provide a link to Cogito Ergo Geek, of course, are already linked in the sidebar. However, if you find a website which links to me I would appreciate notification so I can include them, regardless of their regional origin.

OTHER BLOG NEWS:
In case you haven't noticed, I've returned to weekly archival. I had originally archived monthly, but it was FAR too long for convenient loading via modem. I couldn't, in good conscience, provide much large-file content (such as photos and action-GIFs) because they took so LONG to load.

There was a period last month, when BlogSpot had hardware problems, when I went back to monthly archiving in an attempt to help alleviate bandwidth overloading. (It seems odd to me, that I am becoming increasingly concerned about bandwidths. Members of the Unofficial IPSC List may recall that I have offered sarcastic comments in the past about 'bandwidth' in regards to mailing lists. Believe me, the concern is much more immediate in a Web Log.)

However, now that the BlogSpot problem seems to have been resolved, I am implementing all measures available to make access much more convenient for those of us who connect via modem.

SPEAKING OF MODEM ACCESS:
... I am looking at BroadBand access for my home computer. The 56KB modem I'm currently using is adequate for many purposes, but it is inconvenient when I am researching an article. Recently I have received some criticism for having performed inadequate research to support an article. This spurs me to place a higher priority on access speed.

I don't have cable, so Comcast (the dominant cable provider in Oregon) which seems a logical first choice) is not attractive. I not only have to pay for broadband internet access, but also for TV cable subscription as well.

I have QWEST as my landline provider (used almost exclusively for AOL dial-up ... I have Verizon Wireless for my most commonly used telephone access), but their broadband access is not attractive. PEAK.COM has some attractive support, but QWEST already takes too much of my monthly bill-paying time and my preference is not to support a vendor which has proven to provide less than stellar performance.

I've been advised to use WIFI, because many people in my immedicate geographic neighborhood are using WIFI and it has been suggested that I 'piggy-back' on this immediate availability. However, my research shows that they may not be sufficiently secure, and 24/7 access depends largely on whether a transient bunch of college students are reliable providers.

Phone, Cable TV, unregulated and quasi-anonymous WIFI time ... all present drawbacks.

Has anyone a suggestion to an alternative provider of broadband access? I don't much like the idea of spending over $100 per month for Internet access convenience, and of course it must be secure ....

Carnival of Cordite is UP!

Technogypsy

What is this? Is it the 14th or the 15th Carnival of Cordite?

Never mind. Read this.

Excellent links to bloggers involved in both RKBA and shooting sports are included. Gullyborg has special content for Oregon readers regarding the latest bill from Ginny Burdick.

Weapons Retention

As an ostensibly IPSC Competition-related website, its necessary from time to time for me to host firearms-related context.

Join with me now as we examine the consequences of failure to demonstrate basic firearms-handling skills in a real-world scenario.

June Cooper-isms

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries for June, 2005, are ...
UP!

I'm delighted to report that this month The Colonel discusses the current state of IPSC competition.

---

It seems that the practical element in Practical Marksmanship has suffered drastically due to the lack of variation in the types of courses used in competition, both here and abroad. When the program was started back in California in the 60s, we insisted on each course of fire being radically different from that held during the previous month or session. This called for distinct variation in ranges, firing positions, conditions of readiness and all such matters. However when the movement took off abroad, it turned out that too many jurisdictions called for artificial consistency in course type or course design. In certain places this meant that ranges would always be about the same, the condition of readiness would be the same, and scoring systems would be the same. Note that in Europe today, most major contests require the shooter to start with his weapon resting on a table just within reach, and that spare magazines be presented in specific fashion for each firing string. This means, of course, that speed on the draw has ceased to be a significant element in performance. It is possible that draw speed was overemphasized in the early days, but that does not mean that the idea should be abandoned.

---

The matter of power, of course, has been lost completely, largely due to the fact that pistol power is very difficult to measure. The Europeans insist that the 9mm Parabellum cartridge of 1908 has all the power which may be called for, whereas time has proved that this cartridge is distinctly inferior as a means of stopping fights.

The upshot is that practical pistol shooting in the competitive sense has pretty much lost sight of the element of practicality. If a given course of fire did not replicate the conditions of an actual pistol confrontation, it was not a measure of practical skill. Over here and abroad, however, practicality is now viewed askance by a lot of people who really ought to know better. If the show gets too close to an actual street fight, it becomes sort of "antisocial" and thus should be disallowed in polite competition.

All is not lost, however. Competitive practical pistol shooting may not be everything that it should be, but it is immensely better than it was half a century ago. By better I mean more useful. The service handgun is a fight-stopping device, and its practice should reflect its fight-stopping capacity. A serious pistolero must commence with the proper attitude, and build both his equipment and his annual skill upon that. There are those who might ask what need there is for a serious pistolero, and I cannot answer that question. If one does not know why anyone should be able to defend his life and family and property against felonious aggression, he should move to Britain where self-defense is now illegal.

---

After 85 years, he may not be able to hunt but he has lost none of his Vinegar.

The Case for Curling Iron Control

Armed robber gets extreme makeover

The old adage about the First Rule of a Gunfight use to be: "Bring A Gun".

That's old school.

Today, if you're in Shreveport LA, be sure you have a curling iron handy.

An armed robber brandishing a revolver and some tough talk entered Blalock's Beauty College demanding money Tuesday afternoon.

He left crying, bleeding and under arrest, after Dianne Mitchell, her students and employees attacked the suspect, beating him into submission.

They didn't resist when he cursed them, threatened them, made them lay down on the floor, or when he stole their money. But when he started to take one of them into the back room, they decided they had had enough.

The owner of the beauty shop tripped him, causing him to lose his gun. When she yelled "Get That Sucker!" they attacked him with curling irons, chairs, a table leg ... anything can be a weapon when you're determined to defend yourself.

Blood and urine splattered from the victim; stains adorned the white paints worn by many of the beauty school students.

Crying in pain, the robber tried to crawl away from the students, Mitchell said.

"I grabbed his legs and wouldn't let him go. I pulled him back. He wasn't going to get up out of here and tell everyone he robbed us. When he came in here, he knocked down a beehive and sent the bees flying all over."
(...)
Sharon Blalock, owner of the school, said she couldn't be prouder of her students and employees. "They just whooped the hell out of him."
(...)
"It's like we were saying in class, we have to stay together as a team," Mitchell said. "You can tell any prospective students, Blalock's Beauty College has got your back."

(Geek Note:
Rumors that I plan to move to Louisiana and start a new career as a hairdresser have been exagerated.)

Massachusetts Eighth-Graders Told Science Project Involving BB Gun Too Dangerous

Massachusetts Eighth-Graders Told Science Project Involving BB Gun Too Dangerous

What IS it with these liberal air-head PC-based 'educators' today?

AMHERST, Mass. (AP) - Two eighth-graders who spent months working on a science project to prove how dangerous BB guns can be were disqualified from the state middle school science fair. The reason for the dismissal: BB guns are too dangerous.

Uh .... well, that was sort of the point of the project.

Nathan C. Woodard and Nathaniel A. Gorlin-Crenshaw spent seven months researching and testing their hypothesis that BB guns can be deadly and should not be used by children.

It's not as if their project was a simple matter of putting a couple of BB guns on a board for people to view. They actually tested the penetrating power of BBs as a means of demonstrating that they COULD cause harm. And they ponied up the money so they could perform scientific testing under controlled conditions to prove the point of their thesis.

The students spent about $200 on ballistics gelatin, which has the same density and consistency as human flesh, to use during their tests.

How can a display of tests results be dangerous?

Nancy G. Degon, vice president of Massachusetts State Science Fair Inc. and co-chair of the middle-school fair, said fair rules prohibit hazardous substances and devices.

"The scientific review committee does not consider science projects involving firearms to be safe for middle school students," Degon said.

Excuse me ... "firearms"? A BB gun isn't a firearm. Where's the fire? Don't these pedantic pedagogues understand the English Language?

<>

These are firearms:



This is a BB gun:




Or is it that they are so desperate to cleave to the letter of the law that they are willing to ignore the spirit of the event, which is to give young people the opportunity to learn by performing their own scientific research?

The boys were invited to present their findings to some judges and receive a certificate of accomplishment, but they rejected the offer because they were not allowed to compete.

"I was really disappointed," Woodard said. "We had a good point to prove.

I think they did, too. This is especially surprising in that the point is entirely in line with the political bias of the silly-putty education system.

I'm not the only one who was outraged by this news story.
Our friend Jeff sent me a copy of the letter which he sent to the Science Fair board and the editor of the largest paper in Massachusetts ... The Boston Globe. I'm not sure they'll recognize satire when they read it, but I thought Jeff made his point clear.

Massachusetts State Science Fair Folk:

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You for disqualifying those
two young miscreants, Nathan C. Woodard and Nathaniel A.
Gorlin-Crenshaw from the Massachusetts Middle School State
Science Fair!

As you know, in the 1960s (when I grew up), only 58% of
all elementary students and 31% of all Junior High
School students survived the dangerously permissive
official education policies of the day.

Several of my fellow students were killed daily from
shooting BB guns, carrying pocket knives, having photographs
of firearms in school, taking aspirins brought from home
without the supervision of a Board-certified Registered
Nurse, unsupervised play in woodlands, listening to radios
that plugged into the dangerous AC mains, and wearing
T-shirts expressing controversial ideas. The bodies
littered the gym floor. It's a miracle that any of us
lived to reproduce!

Thank God that today there are people like you to protect
the children from parent- and police-supervised study of
BB guns!

By the way, I see an oversight in your official rules.
While you state that the Middle Schoolers may not do a
project that involves "Nonhuman vertebrate animals", the
rules do not prohibit projects involving "Human (presumably
vertebrate) animals". I can see a project involving Human
Sexuality, in which two Middle-schoolers have sex in
alternate weeks and determine the exact moment of conception,
with video documentation. (A second pair of students will
use condoms, perhaps, as a control). This doesn't seem to
violate your published rules: perhaps a "no sex" rule is
called-for? Of course, you'll need to define what "sex" is,
in very explicit terms, so that the children will know what
you are prohibiting.

http://www.scifair.com/middle/manual.pdf

Please enhance your protection of the children, and keep
up the good work!


(By the way, please tell Nancy G. Degon that a BB gun is *not*
a firearm. She sounds stupid when she says that.)

Jeff M. [last name deleted by the Geek]
Powell OH

middleschool@scifair.com
mmroth@scifair.com
editor@boston.com

NOTE:
If you aren't convinced, you can read the Massachusetts State Science Fair rules.

The only mention of "firearms" is included in this section:

Controlled Substances

Controlled substances, including DEA-classed substances, prescription drugs, alcohol and tobacco, must be acquired and used according to existing local, state and federal laws. Student researchers must adhere to all regulations governing controlled substances. Production of alcohol is federally regulated and students must contact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for regulations and permission. Students under 21 years of age are prohibited by federal laws from purchasing and or handling smokeless powder or black powder for science projects.

This obviously does not apply.

Why was this project rejected?

Could it be that the Ms Degon had her own political agenda?

We can only wonder what 'the children' learned from this, other than that people who have authority often abuse their authority.

Kalifornia Bullet-Coding Scheme IV: Citizens Revolt!

In response to bills which were introduced this year to both the California Assembly and the California Senate, which would impose unworkable and unreasonable restrictions on both firearms and ammunition, a California gun club has banned use of their range facilities for training purposes to staff of the California Department of Justice which support these proposed laws.

The Folsom Shooting Club (FSC), owners/operators of the Sacramento Valley Shooting Center (SVSC), on June 5, 2005, sent a letter to Bill Lockyer (Attorney General of the state of California) stating that ...

"... the Department of Justice staff, while acting in their official capacity, are suspended from using the Sacramento Valley Shooting Center. The (Board of Directors of the Folsom Shooting Club) is concerned that your staff will further your efforts regarding AB352 and SB357 while using our facility...."

As has mentioned earlier in this Blog, SB357 would require that every bullet sold in the state of California, whether sold as an individual reloading component as part of a complete pistol ammunition cartridge, would be engraved with a serial number which is consistent within every other bullet or cartridge within the 50-round package in which the component is purchased.

We previously reported (June 8) on the AG's endorsement of the bill, and before that (on June 5) on the California Senate's approval, and before that (on April 27) on the bill's preliminary discussion and advancement through the Senate. In fact, the bill was originally introduced in early February of 2005.

Another bill, AB352 (not previously mentioned here), would require that new firearms sold in California after a certain date would automatically stamp each cartridge case with the serial number unique to this firearm. Parenthetically, we should note that this constitutes ipso facto registration of every new pistol sold in California, because the purported purpose of this measure is to aid in criminal investigations whenever a firearm is used in the commission of a crime.

In order for '... (automatic stamping of) ... each cartridge case with the serial number unique to this firearm..." to be effective, ALL applicable firearms must be registered.

So much for the 2nd amendment.

---

In response, and in protest to these bills, FSC has retaliated in the only meaningful manner they could enforce: they refused access to their private property for the AG office agents.

Here's how it looks in the press, as interpreted by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Gun Enthusiasts Get Ugly in California Legislative..."

To: National Desk

Contact: Amanda Wilcox of the Million Mom March, 530-432-2171, Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign, 202-898-0792

SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A shooting range here has announced a ban on use of its shooting facilities by employees of the California Department of Justice because the Department is supporting two bills in the State legislature that the club opposes.

The bills represent groundbreaking new ballistic identification systems which would give police new crime solving tools. Each would set up systems for markings on gun ammunition in California that would help law enforcement investigators track down the perpetrators of shootings that might otherwise remain unsolved. One bill (AB 352) would require handguns to include a device that stamps a specific number on bullets that are fired by that handgun, while the other (SB 357) would require that ammunition manufacturers mark ammunition with a serial number for potential tracking.

The bills have the support of the California DOJ. No California law enforcement organizations oppose the measures. In a letter to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Thomas S. Hause, President of the Folsom Shooting Club, which operates the Sacramento Valley Shooting Center outside Sacramento, wrote "The Board of Directors of the Folsom Shooting Club (FSC) has directed me to advise you, in writing, that Department of Justice staff, while acting in their official capacity, are suspended from using the Sacramento Valley Shooting Center (SVSC). The FSC is concerned that your staff will further your efforts regarding AB 352 and SB 357 while using our facility."

("Gun Enthusiasts Get Ugly" ????)

And The Brady Campaign thinks this is A Bad Thing ... why?

Leaders of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Million Mom March are urging the club to drop the policy immediately. "It is offensive that the owners of this shooting range would rather side with criminals than with law enforcement and victims, not to mention that they are discriminating against people simply because they have a different view on legislation," said Amanda Wilcox, State Council Leader of the Million Mom March. "It is also very troubling when it is law enforcement agents who are using the facility for training purposes."

"What's next - should police who support sensible gun laws have their firearms taken away? This is un-American, and these guys ought to have their heads examined," said Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign.

The Brady Bunch wouldn't want a bunch of ignorant private citizens to protest against governmental intrusion into their Second Amendment Rights because it may offend a government agency. They consider the action to be "(siding) with criminals", and apparently think that the private club should accomodate governmental agencies rather than to exercise their right to protest publically, and to refuse governmental agencies to occupy their property whether or not the owners wish to host them.

There go the First and the Third amendments.

Brady has no respect for the constitution. They have their own agenda, and it is NOT about the rights of private citizens.

They characterize the actions of private citizens as "ugly", but probably would not accept that their own propaganda is "ugly" in the eyes of the same private citizens.

They publically question the sanity of anyone who does not agree with their agenda.

Those of us who respect the constitution, and view it as our protection against intrusive Federal govenmental actions, consider such intrusions as are suggested by the Brady Campaign to be repugnant and anti-constitutional.

If you would like to protest the Brady Campaign's attempted infringements of our private rights, and their vile censorship of reasonable and legitimate protests, you can contact them directly via their website.

Further news and comments on this intrusion upon American rights are available across the Internet, including:
The Keep and Bear Arms Gun Owners page

120 rounds: Part II

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > State -- 13 L.A. sheriff's deputies to be punished for wild assault on car

On May 15, 2005, we talked about the incident where a baker's dozen L.A. Sheriff's Deputies engaged in a "Blue-On-Blue" * firefight with the results of turning a SUV into a cheese grater, and an innocent man into a marginal statistic.
Consequences:

• Initially, one thoroughly wasted SUV
• Four D-zone hits
• One potential lawsuit (watch this space)
• One Deputy hit by 'friendly fire' .. hardcover hit, he was vested
• The Wrong Guy arrested (the SUV driver was apparently NOT a participant in the 'drive-by' shooting)

Now we have another consequence:

• 13 L.A. Sheriff's Deputies disciplined
• 2 deputy suspended for 15 days
• Other deputies off duty for lesser periods
• some deputies receive written reprimands

Interesting comments from the outcome:

The sheriff also praised the deputies, saying they "are dedicated and have great passion and concern for the people of Compton."

The announcement drew a mixed reaction.

Activist Morris Griffin hugged Baca after the news conference. "We never expected the police to police themselves," Griffin said.

Swell. The Sheriff praises the deputies for their 'dedication', 'activists' hug the Sheriff, and NOBODY talks about the Tactical Officer.

It's not all negative:

(L.A. County Sheriff) Baca on Thursday announced changes in the department's shooting policy. The changes toughen language designed to restrict deputies from shooting at moving vehicles except under "extraordinary" circumstances, Baca said.

The old policy warned deputies to get out of the path of a moving vehicle and allowed them to fire at it if they believed the driver could kill or seriously injure someone.

The new language instructs deputies to take cover from a safe distance, train a weapon on the suspect and give specific commands to surrender before considering shooting.

Deputies can still fire when they feel the vehicle is an immediate threat of death or serious injury to deputies or bystanders.

However, each deputy must now use his or her own "independent reasoning for using deadly force," according to the policy.

That was an effort to prevent "contagious fire," in which deputies shoot because other deputies are doing so.

"We want and will have increased public confidence," Baca said. "The Sheriff's Department can do better and it will do better."

"Contagious Fire" seems to be, well, "contagious" in Los Angeles County. Probably no different in most other counties in America. The thing is, I experiences two "Blue-on-Blue" situations in Vietnam, and while I was getting the platoon to shut it DOWN, I saw that only a few excitable individuals were emotionally overwhelmed to the point where they were shooting regardless of the fact that they didn't have a clearly enemy target.

My personal opinion is that the involved deputies were under-trained, and over-reacted to the real situation.

As I stated in my original May 15 article:

Their deputies should be flagellated by their tactical officers because nobody can accept that this is the way they have been trained; their tactical officers should be flagellated by the Sheriff because nobody can accept that these tactics have been trained 'out of them'; and the Sheriff should be flagellated by the people who elected him, because he obviously hasn't insisted on proper training for his deputies.

Sheriff Baca skated out of harm's way on this one. If he is re-elected based on his performance, I will not only be surprised, but disappointed. This is one incident which deserves NOT to be swept under the carpet.

Any leader who survives such a miserable boondoggle as this ... represents the "electors get the politician they deserve" judgement.

I'm glad that I don't live in L.A. County. But if I did, I would do everything within my power to see that he never held public office again ... especially one which involved the supervision of Law Enforcement Officers.


* "Blue-on-Blue":
"Friendly forces" are typically designated on color-coded military maps as "Blue Forces". (Enemy forces are designated as "Red Forces", which perhaps explains why Republicans objects to political maps depicting "predominantly Republican" states in the color Red.)

When, usually due to the 'fog of war', American troops begin shooting at another unit which turns out to be 'friendly forces', the situation is subsequently referred to as a "Blue-On-Blue" firefight.

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries

Volume 13, #4 (April, 2005)

I'm sorry to report that Col. Cooper is two months 'behind' in his Commentaries. I hope this is due to his being too busy to pay appropriate attention to maintaining the contributions, rather than that ill-health precludes the effort.

Nevertheless, Jeff Cooper continues to provide us with thought-provoking commentary.

Here is one such contribution; consider it a 'teaser' and go read the whole article:

This letter comes from a distinguished Gunsite graduate now serving as an assistant division commander in Iraq. It may clear up our national position now somewhat obscured by our news media. It is not an official communication, but rather a private letter.

"Dear Friends,

"It isn't over yet, but today there was a resounding victory for freedom and democracy here in Baghdad. Having been here for a while now, many of us have grown weary of the hand-wringers, worriers, pessimists, whiners, and host of others who have been telling us for so long that all is lost in Iraq. Today we witnessed just how courageous the Iraqi people can be and how much they love their new-found freedom.

"After listening to the pundits tell us how terrible the Iraqi Security Forces are, today I watched the Iraqi Security Forces stand tall. They protected, 1,188 polling sites in Baghdad. Although there were a number of suicide bombers who attacked today, not a single one penetrated the perimeter of a polling site. There were several Iraqi policemen, and several Iraqi soldiers who lost their lives today. But they did not lose their honor or their courage; none of the 30,000 plus Iraqi Security Forces on duty in Baghdad ran away from danger today.

"At the site of our first suicide bombing of the day, voters did not lose their courage either. They quickly lined back up at the same site, spitting on the body of the suicide bomber as they passed by in line to vote. A woman came out of line and took the shoe of the bomber and put it on his face - a great insult to an Arab. The same was true at any polling site that had violence. Voters immediately lined up again to cast their vote. How many Americans value their privilege to vote enough to show that kind of courage?

"We have listened to many experts talk about how the Sunnis would not participate in the election. Polling sites in Abu Guyreb were moved to Gasaliya because the Iraqi Election Commission was concerned about security in Abu Guyreb. We watched thousands walk down the highway - Sunni Moslems - on the 7 mile round trip to the polling sites so they could vote. All under the threat that terrorists had been making that they would kill anyone who voted. How many Americans would do that?

"All over Baghdad the story was the same and I could tell a dozen stories of great courage and determination. Despite the enemy's campaign of terror, despite danger, threats, intimidation, and the sporadic incidents of violence and terror today, Iraqis turned out in determined, large numbers to vote. The excitement was moving. Even though the terrorists have said they will kill anyone with a "marked finger" (when you voted your finger was dipped in ink to keep people from voting a second time), voters paraded down the street holding their fingers up in joy and overwhelming pride.

"When I told one Iraqi I was sorry that people had died or been wounded today, he just said `freedom has a price, and this is the price that we must pay.' And every Iraqi I talked to said thank you to the United States for this opportunity, for this freedom, and how grateful they were for our help.

"I am sure it will only be hours until you start hearing all the `experts,' most of which have never been to Iraq, start trying to convince us that today was flawed, failed, or somehow less than a wonderful day and a blow for freedom. They are the same people who say we are failing here, that you couldn't do an election on the 30th of January, and on and on. It is true we haven't `won' here yet. It is not predetermined that we will win, and it will take continued sacrifice and determination on our part. Those who hate freedom and democracy will still fight, many to the death, to try to stop this march to freedom and prosperity by the Iraqis with our help. They are terrified of the thought of a free and democratic Iraq that leads this whole region to a democratic future.

"But despite this, I encourage you from here in Baghdad, for at least one day, to ignore the pundits and experts, to enjoy a day where a blow for freedom was struck. Know that somewhere in the world, because of the sacrifice of your friends, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and countrymen; good won over evil, freedom over terror, and democracy over despotism.

"Last June 30, Iraq was given its sovereignty. Today, they earned their freedom. And we should all be joyful for that."

Not all of his comments are so politically (or patriotically) oriented. He continues to offer more 'practical' observations:

I have as yet no valid opinion about the 45 short cartridge. This should take about a year's worth of field evaluation.

Let us hope that he is able to complete this evaluation.

Kalifornia Bullet-Coding Scheme III: AG Approves!

Lockyer, Dunn and Perata Introduce New Legislation to Solve Gun Crimes

It may not come as a big surprise to you that California Attorney General Bill Lockyer approves of the recent "Serialization" of bullets scheme.

We've talked about how this proposition would not only make it fiscally impossible for ammunition manufacturers to provide affordable ammunition to citizens of California, but also that the bill has 'hidden' clauses which include fees, penalties (including jail terms) and registration not once, but twice.

AG Locklyer, that egrigious politician, goes along with the leftist fantasy that this bill is intended to help solve shootings; he never mentions that it essentially circumvents the Second Amendment by making it impractical for most citizens to possess ammunition which makes the defensive handgun WORK!

Locklyer has nothing new to say. His website makes typical comments such as this:

Lockyer, Dunn and Perata Introduce New Legislation to Solve Gun Crimes Measure Would Put Unique Identifiers on Each Bullet Made and Sold in California April 26, 2005 05-028 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (916) 324-5500 (SACRAMENTO) - Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Sen. Joe Dunn and Senate President pro Tem Don Perata today unveiled legislation to help law enforcement personnel solve firearms-related homicide investigations. SB 357, authored by Dunn, co-authored by Perata and sponsored by the Attorney General would create a new "bullet serialization" system that will allow investigating officers to trace bullets recovered from crime scenes to the person who purchased the ammunition. "Gang-related gun violence is one of the fastest growing concerns for communities throughout California," Lockyer said. "We are losing too many of our young people to seemingly random shootings and anonymous killers. SB 357 will strip criminals of their anonymity and give law enforcement evidence it can use to quickly and effectively solve more gun crimes." The new system would require every bullet sold or manufactured in California to be affixed with an identifier. When an ammunition vendor sells handgun bullets to a purchaser, the vendor would match the identifier on the ammunition with the purchaser, and then log the match into an electronic database run by the Attorney General's Office. When a bullet is recovered from a crime scene where a firearm is used, law enforcement investigators will be able to check the bullet for the identifier and match it with a purchaser. "With the passage of SB 357, California will bring law enforcement investigative tools into the modern age," Dunn said. "This system will be an important new tool to help law enforcement personnel identify and convict violent felons and murderers." In 2003, over 72 percent (1,733) of California homicides were committed with a firearm. Almost 45 percent of these homicides were unsolved. Additionally, 63,597 robberies were reported in 2003, with armed robbery accounting for 53.9 percent (34,252) of these crimes. A firearm was used in 64.7 percent (22,161) of all armed robberies. Only 27.1 percent of robberies were solved in 2003. "SB 357 offers crime scene investigators a valuable new tool to help solve and deter crimes," Perata said. "Numbers on bullets mean criminals off streets." Specifically, SB 357 does the following: Requires all handgun ammunition manufactured or sold in California to be marked with a unique identifier. The identifier would then be associated with the purchaser of the handgun ammunition at the point of sale and maintained in an electronic database run by the Attorney General's Office. Requires all vendors and manufacturers who conduct handgun ammunition sales in the state to register with the Attorney General's Office. Assesses vendor and end-user fees to pay for the costs of the program. Creates criminal and civil penalties for individuals and corporations who circumvent the requirements of SB 357. A graphic representation of how bullet serialization works and photos of serialized bullets fired into car doors can be found here.

The one NEW thing is the link provided in the quote, which takes you to a PDF (which loads VERY slowly!) and shows us his view of a "serialized" bullet. I've included the essential view here.



Perhaps the most interesting thing we see here is that the demonstration bullet has purportedly been fired against a hard surface, deformed by the impact, yet the serial number is still readily readable.

The information he does NOT provide includes:

• the caliber of the bullet (hence, the surface area shown)
• any management of he number of digits in the serial, which would need to be much longer in order to be practical considering the large number of ammunition manufacturers in this country ... assuming that more than, say TWO of them still try to market ammunition in this state!
• the technology, and the production process changes, which ammunition manufacturers would have to adopt in order to effect the "serialization".
• the REAL cost of serialized bullets
• the 'hidden' clauses in the law which allow the AG office to retain firearms sales records

It's redundant to continue this list. Most of the objections have already been listed in excruciating detail on this forum, and you can go back to earlier comments to read them. (Note that this announcement by the AG is dated April 26, 2005.)

The REAL danger in this state law is that if California can fool their voters into thinking that it's reasonable, there's no reason to expect that otherGunGrabber states won't adopt the same or similar law.

It's not a California problem. It's a National problem.
If YOU live in California, I urge you to tell your State Assemblyman that this is a BAD law, and it will not accomplish the goals it purports to address.

They won't listen to a Geek from Oregon.

Kipling: Macdonough's Song

I spent so much time dealing with unimportant technical stuff (such as software upgrades and blog errors) that I almost forgot Kipling Night!

Thankfully, I have on tap a timely poem, because I'm hoping to get to bed before midnight tonite. The data entry is easy, because I found this already transcribed on an Australian website called Whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au (click on the article title above to go directly to the original).

I found this poem in the forepage of a Tom Clancy novel: The Teeth of the Tiger. The book is about terrorism, the poem is about terrorism, and unfortunately our current era is all too much about terrorism. This poem was written sometime between 1899 and his death in 1936. Kipling is writing about 'coersive collectivism', but here he demonstrates Cassandra's gift, fortelling issues which we now face in our daily lives and fears.

Interestingly, this can be interpreted in more than one way. Who are the Holy People? Are they the Radical Islaamists, or are they the Evangelistic Christians in America? Your answer to this question fairly defines who YOU are.

Macdonough’s Song

Rudyard Kipling

---

WHETHER the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth—
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
Endeth in Holy War.

Whether The People be led by The Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by vote—
These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.

Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give,
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King—
Or Holy People’s Will—
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!
Saying—after—me:—

Once there was The People—Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!
Once there was The People—it shall never be again!

The Smallest Minority

Sunday, as I was reading my email, I noticed that Kevin Baker had commented on my article about internet browsers (This Blog Condemned)

Later, while surfing through my links, I hit on kevin's website and saw that he had included a link to Cogito Ergo Geek.

I can do no less than to elevate his link to "Links To Me" from "Visit Frequently".
It's a courtesy thing, of course: you link to me, I link to you.

But I'm happy to provide him the highest accolade possible in Blogdom, because of the inherent quality of his contributions.

Go look at Kevin's blog; The Smallest Minority. Everything he writes about is meticulously researched, and supportive links abound.

This is truly a "Geek-Length" blog. I hope you visit him often and enjoy his contributions to general knowledge as much as do I.

AGS - One Hand Clapping

On April 14, 2005, Americans for Gun Safety applauded the efforts of the notorious anti-RKBA Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to undermine the constitutional rights of gun owners. Of course, they don't express their agenda in such clear terms:

AGS - Press Release Detail:

Illinois Governor Announces Groundbreaking Gun Trafficking Program

Americans for Gun Safety Praises Governor Blagojevich’s Efforts to Stem the Tide of Crime Guns

WASHINGTON – Today, Governor Rod Blagojevich announced the formation of a groundbreaking effort designed to stop the flow of illegal weapons into the hands of criminals in his state, of Illinois. This program addresses the central, yet ignored, aspect of the gun debate, the methods by which criminals arm themselves.

“Americans for Gun Safety has worked very closely with Governor Blagojevich on this program, and we are very pleased to see him take these crucial steps,” said John Lacey, Communications Director for Americans for Gun Safety, a centrist gun policy group. “The Governor has studied Illinois’ gun problem and formulated a response which we are confident will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. We urge all communities affected by gun violence to follow the Governor’s lead.”

This program is designed to go after the sources of guns used in Illinois crime before criminals have a chance to use them. The majority of crime guns in Illinois come from states with weaker gun laws. More crime guns flow into Illinois from Indiana and Mississippi than from any other state. According to recent data, 777 crime guns from Indiana and 532 crime guns from Mississippi were located in Illinois. Crime guns from these two states alone nearly equal the total number of crime guns from the next 10 states combined.

Nationwide, close to 90 percent of guns used in crimes are trafficked.

That sounds fairly 'centrist' (previous quote's emphasis is mine) , doesn't it? All they want to do is to get prevent guns, which are 'trafficked' from 'states with weaker gun laws', from falling into the hands of criminals. To do that, Blagovijevich has announced a 'program' ... but I don't see a reference to a law. I'll have to look that up ... more later. (Without legislation, this is nothing but smoke and mirrors.)

So far, this is a disengenuous attempt to restrict 'trafficked' guns from being imported into the state.
(Note that there are already federal laws which prohibit the purchase of guns out-of-state. )


Then, on May 18, AGS addressed the question of 'criminals with guns' in the state of Pennsylvania:

AGS: PA Gun Commission Moves Beyond Divisive Gun Politics to Address Problem

Report Includes Key Recommends Made by Americans for Gun Safety

WASHINGTON – Americans for Gun Safety applauds the Pennsylvania Commission on Gun Violence’s report outlining a comprehensive approach to the problem of gun violence. The Commission’s report, released yesterday, represents an honest look at the problem of gun violence and gun policy, and includes solutions that can taken at the local level.

“With this report, the Commission was able to accomplish something rarely seen when it comes to guns” said John Lacey, Communications Director for Americans for Gun Safety, a centrist gun policy group. “They moved beyond the traditional divisive politics of guns to focus on the real problem: criminals and the ease with which they can access firearms.”

The report highlights law enforcement, legislative, and public education recommendations submitted to commission by Americans for Gun Safety. These recommendations include: increased use of gun tracing by all levels of law enforcement; legislative steps designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children; and, the Felon Warning Project, a public education initiative designed by Americans for Gun Safety Foundation in partnership with the American Probation and Parole Association to warn felons they are prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The report also recognizes the local nature of Pennsylvania’s gun problem, and proposes local solutions.

“The vast majority of guns used in Pennsylvania crime come from Pennsylvania,” said Lacey. “Gun violence solutions need to address the local aspect of this problem, otherwise criminals will continue arming themselves unabated.”

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives data show that the majority of firearms in Pennsylvania are first purchased at retail within 10 miles of where they are used in a crime. While the firearm may changes hands several times between retail sale and crime, the close proximity of the two events clearly indicates the local nature of Pennsylvania’s crime gun problem and the key role local Pennsylvania officials should play.

Apparently, in Pennsylvania, the problem isn't with gun 'trafficking' from other states. The problem is that guns are purchased in-state.
So the problem is either that guns are available from other states, or that guns are available locally.

Ultimately, according to that great 'centrist' organization Americans for Gun Safety', the problem isn't where the guns come from. The problem is that guns exist.

There's nothing 'centrist' about that, folks. This may come as a surprise, but AGS puts up a front about being 'centrist' (or 'moderate') but the truth is that they are 100% totally anti-gun. They adopt the camoflauge of a group of people who just want to get along, but their agenda isn't very cleverly hidden.

They want to remove firearms from American Society. It doesn't matter whether they take guns from criminals, or from immigrants, or from you. They want them OUT.

The truth is, of course, that Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. Ultimately, they aren't campaigning to remove firearms from the hands of criminals. They're campaigning to deprive you of your right to defend yourself, or to hunt, or to engage in shooting competition, or just to have guns because it's no damn business of the AGS whether you have firearms and they don't LIKE that!

.........

In another unrelated incident, Pittsburgh (Pa) police were recently involved in a shooting in which nobody was injured. One hundred three rounds were expended, but nobody was hit.

Sounds like a reasonable argument for Gun Control. As in: the police need to learn how to control their guns.

.........

On the other hand, here's an anecdotal report from a member of the Unofficial IPSC List:

Well.....after all the reports of Law Enforcement having itchy trigger fingers and expelling a few more than req'd amounts of ammo, our local sheriff came into the gun shop the other day and said " before I tell you anything else....I only took 2 shots!!" (smiling)

Then he proceeded to tell us how he was called out to dispatch 2 cows that were unning thru and raising hell in a near by town and the owner refused to do anything about it. He shot them both with his .308, dropped them on the spot and the meat went to the local food shelf. He wanted to make sure that we knew this irst, before it made the newspaper ... of course ... it never did.

The Americans for Gun Safety would be proud of him. Of course, PETA thinks he exercised undue force.

This is the one time when I may be inclined to side with PETA.

What do YOU think?

This Blog UN-condemned!

A few days ago I wrote an article describing how Internet Explorer (IE)was a 'bad browser', and simultaneously extolled the virtues of NetScape.

Today I received my NetScape Version 8.0 Update Disk, and loaded it.

NetScape displayed my weblog in the same demented way as did IE.

I was outraged. NetScape has Let The Side Down!
Then I calmed down a little, and started checking out the webpage. I found a banner in my AirAmerica article which extended across the page. The old version of NetScape (7.2) overlayed the sidebar, which was sloppy but I didn't care.

The new version of NetScape (8.0) apparently allowed this to force the width of the text area to conform to the banner settings, and resulted in an 'ugly webpage'.

It's my fault. I was sloppy, the old NetScape version let me get away with it. Now the new version of NetScape will NOT let me get away with sloppy page design.

I suppose this is an improvement, and I'm sure that it will result in more careful construction on my part.

But I have to admit, I kinda miss the old NetScape. I only switched to the new version to ensure that the software vendor would continue to support it.

The good news here is that IE will now display the Cogito Ergo Geek website a neatly as does NetScape.

The bad news (if you're an IE afficianado) is that IE still loads slower, and MS still announces an average of one security breach every month.

I won't switch to IE as my primary browser ... ever! ... but you should be aware of some problems which I have encountered tonight after upgrading NetScape from version 7.2 to version 8.0.

The worst of them (I expect to find more) is that the upgrade process does NOT bring your password files to the new version. Therefore, if you plan to upgrade NetScape, be sure that you have ALL of your passwords (and user IDs) for EVERY website you commonly visit logged in a hardcopy file somewhere. I'm genetically paranoid, so I have all of my passwords logged on paper and I can build a new 'DataCard' (NetScape's new password file device) for each website as I visit it. It's a slow, laborious process and I can't imagine why NetScape wouldn't choose to transfer the password manager data to the new version ... but I can live with it.

Still, I can continue to use my new browser, and I'm sure I will become more comfortable with it as I go along. There ARE some very good features in the new NetScape browser version, but I'll let you discover them the same way I do.

This isn't easy for a guy who resists change as vehemently as I. Just ask anyone who suffered through my invective when USPSA issued a new competition Rule Book last year!

UPDATE: June 7, 2005

Life's too short to spend weeks trying to work around obvious new-release software bugs. Version 8.0 of NetScape has many more problems than I had originally perceived. One of them is that, when several windows are open, it activates windows I'm not currently trying to work in. Another is that it's difficult to access the Windows toolbar from NetScape 8.0.

Instead of reporting problems to NetScape (which doesn't have an obvious error-dialogue path) and waiting for them to release a patch, I restored my system to a previous date. This doesn't say much good about NetScape 8.0, but it speaks volumes for Windows XP.

BROADBAND:IDF Releases video of missle hitting HAMAS terrorists

No comment, except that I've viewed the video several times, and I can't think of a more approriate response.

Although I'm inclined to wish that the IDF gunner had moved his cursur just a little to the left, to insure that he included in his blast-area the folks who had already dumped their mortar load on Israeli civilians.

Note: this is VERY broadband-friendly, not modem-friendly. The Bad Guys look like ants in either version, but at least you can keep track of the ant-ish movement in broadband.

Kalilfornia Bullet-Coding Scheme II: Senate approves!

Senate approves bullet-coding measure

(Another Hat Tip to John H. of The Unofficial IPSC List)

You may recall that last April, Cogito Ergo Geek fisked this bill and described several of the provisions which would make it impossible for any ammunition manufacturer to offer for sale any except custom-loaded pistol ammunition at great expense to the consumer.

Essentially, this is nothing more than a transparent attempt to impose gun control by making the purchase of ammunition economically infeasible to 99.9% of the population. The production controls would be so stringent, and the fines for failure of petty quality-control measures so unacceptable, no manufacturer would willingly accept the limitations.

The California State Senate approved this bill last week, with few modifications, and passed it on to the State Assembly for consideration. If passed by the State Assembly, California private citizens might as well throw their handguns into the San Francisco Bay because only Criminals will have ammunition after mid-2007.

Here is the Legislative Counsel's Digest of the bill, as modified May 18, 2005:

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 357, as amended, Dunn. Ammunition: serialized handgun ammunition.
Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.
This bill would establish a program requiring serialization of handgun ammunition, as defined, to be enforced by the Department of Justice. The bill would require, commencing July 1, 2007, that handgun ammunition be serialized. The bill would specify the nature of the serialization and provide various exceptions to certain prohibitions in the bill. Manufacture, transfer, and possession, as specified, of nonserialized handgun ammunition after that date would be an offense, as specified. The bill would require ammunition vendors and manufacturers to register with the Department of Justice, as specified. The bill would require specified information in connection with handgun ammunition transactions be recorded and maintained by the vendor and manufacturer. Willful failure to comply with certain record requirements by a vendor would be an offense.
Provision of false information to a vendor by a prospective ammunition purchaser would be an offense.

The bill would impose a fee of $.005 per bullet or round of ammunition, and a $50 annual registration fee for handgun ammunition vendors. The Department of Justice would be authorized to adopt regulations relating to assessing and collecting those fees. The fees would be deposited in the Serialize Handgun Ammunition Fund, which would be established by the bill. Manufacturers who fail to comply with certain registry and recordkeeping requirements would be liable for civil penalties, as specified. Persons who obliterate the serialization on assembled ammunition or bullets would be guilty of an offense. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

You can figure out for yourself that this would essentially make ammunition too expensive for most people, when every bullet in a box of pistol ammunition must contain an unique serial number ... and many ammunition manufacturers don't make their own bullets.

The 'digest' provided doesn't mention some of the more subtle provisions which have been cunningly slipped into the bill. (The format of the bill, as published on the Internet, makes it difficult to follow the sections and sub-sections, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs. I have modified the text of the bill into a msWord document, and can also provide a *.txt version, which shows the true organization of the bill. I will be glad to provide these files to anyone who is willing and able to host them.)

First, while there are exemptions for "members of the California National Guard during the discharge of their official duties ...", and for "...peace officers from other states during the discharge of their official duties in California", there are no exemptions forCalifornia Law Enforcement Officers during the normal performance of their duties. However, the bill DOES require the state to reimburse local departments for expenses added because of the requirements of this bill:

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

In other words, if you are a citizen of California, your state taxes would be used to pay for the ammunition used by all Law Enforcement Officers (and perhaps Rent-A-Cops private security agencies) during performance of their duties, which includes the hundreds or thousands of cases of ammunition used every month for training across the state! No exemptions are specified for members of federal agencies in the performance of their duties, such as the FBI, DEA, or Army Reserve. We assume that the outrageous cost of ammunition used by these agencies in California would be paid by federal taxes.

Next, the California State Attorney General's Office may require registration of handguns (based on dealer sales records per Section 1[b]), with the following restrictions.

(2) A peace officer, the Attorney General, a Department of Justice employee designated by the Attorney General, or any authorized local law enforcement employee shall not retain or compile any information from a firearms transaction record, as defined in paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of Section 12071, for firearms that are not handguns unless retention or compilation is necessary for use in a criminal prosecution or in a proceeding to revoke a license issued pursuant to Section 12071.

(All italicized emhpasis added)
The State of California is permitted to determine when registration is 'necessary'.

If a California agency decides that such registration is 'necessary', does the registration disappear after the period of necessity (eg: a criminal investigation) is completed?

No. Also included in Section 1:

(c)

(1) The Attorney General shall permanently keep and properly file and maintain all information reported to the Department of Justice pursuant to Sections 12071, 12072, 12078, 12082, and 12084 or any other law, as to handguns and maintain a registry thereof.

This applies, apparently, whether or not the original registry occurs in accordance with federally mandated guidelines.

What is included in this registry?

(2) The registry shall consist of all of the following:

(A) The name, address, identification of, place of birth (state or country), complete telephone number, occupation, sex,description, and all legal names and aliases ever used by the owner or person being loaned the particular handgun as listed on the information provided to the department on the Dealers' Record of Sale, the Law Enforcement Firearms Transfer (LEFT), as defined in Section 12084, or reports made to the department pursuant to Section 12078 or any other law.

(B) The name and address of, and other information about, any person (whether a dealer or a private party) from whom the owner acquired or the person being loaned the particular handgun and when the firearm was acquired or loaned as listed on the information provided to the department on the Dealers' Record of Sale, the LEFT, or reports made to the department pursuant to Section 12078 or any other law.

(C) Any waiting period exemption applicable to the transaction which resulted in the owner of or the person being loaned the particular handgun acquiring or being loaned that firearm.

(D) The manufacturer's name if stamped on the firearm, model name or number if stamped on the firearm, and, if applicable, the serial number, other number (if more than one serial number is stamped on the firearm), caliber, type of firearm, if the firearm is new or used, barrel length, and color of the firearm.

This is registration, pure and simple, and it will NEVER go away. If you (whether or not you are a California citizen) loan a firearm to anyone who is a California citizen, both you and the person to whom you loaned the firearm, and the firearm itself, WILL be registered.

And what if an appelate court should decide that the state erred in determination of such necessity?

(3) A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.

This implies a fine on the order of $500 or less, imposed upn the state ... not upon an individual, even if he or she is acting within his or her assigned duties as a state employee.

On the other hand, what are the penalties for a private citizen who is found to possess non-serialized ammunition after June 1, 2007?

SEC. 3. Section 12314 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 12314.

(a) Commencing July 1, 2007, and except as provided in subdivision (g), any person who manufactures, causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale or personal use, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any handgun ammunition that is not serialized pursuant to this section is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or in the state prison.

Here are some of the implications of this law:

I, for example, a California citizen offers (or "exposes for sale", as in a display when the item is not specifically identified as "NOT FOR SALE!") ammunition from the Civil War (not from a muzzle-loader) in a yard-sale, he or she may be incarcerated in a county jail or state prison for one year.

If YOU are at a shooting match, and a friend runs out of ammunition, if you loan your friend a handful of ammunition which is is NOT in a package marked with the serial number of the ammunition involved, you are arguably subject to similar punishment. In fact, even if you provide the ammunition in an appropriately marked package, you may be subject to punishment ... the law is not clear on that point because you are not a registered retailer of ammunition and you may have not have registered as, nor paid the $50 registration fee required of, an 'ammunition retailer'. This may or may not apply even though you do not receive recompensation in ANY form as a result of 'loaning' ammunition.

If you are NOT a California resident, and are attending at match in California; if you use ammunition which you brought with you (and which is therefore not 'serialized' according to California law), you are also subject to punishment consistent with a 'misdemeanor' infraction of the law. This applies whether or not you make this ammunition available to any other person, whether or not that person is a California resident.

On the other hand, if the California State Attorney General keeps your firearms purchase information ("Dealer Sales") whether or not it is related to an 'ongoing investigation', then the STATE (not the individual) is subject to fines appropriate to a 'misdemeanor' (about $500). The individual is not necessarily responsible for this fine; it may be payed by the State, which means it comes out of YOUR taxes.

Please, go to the link which describes the details of the bill. Decide for yourself whether it is economically possible to possess pistol ammunition in California and avoid incarceration, or whether it is possible to understand what is 'right' and 'wrong' under this law.

I'll say it again: this is nothing less than an attempt to impose gun control by making ammunition impossible to attain.

This is a transparent copy of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's attempt in 1999 to impose a 1000% tax on amunition, for similar and obvious reasons.

It has, surprisingly, been improved by the California State Senate. It will pass in the California State Assembly unless every California resident opposes the bill at the State Assembly level.

As nearly as I can tell (too soon after the June 2, 2005, Senate vote which moved the bill to the State Assembly for a State Assembly Bill to have been assigned?) this may have been designated as AB352. You can track the bill using this link.

Here are some links to discussions of this egregious bill:

1911 Forum
Free Republic
S&W Forum
officer.com
packing.com
AR15.com
NRA: CA Legislative Councl (AB352)l
Gun Owners of California
North County (California) Times
KCAL Channel 9 in Los Angeles

(Here are some interesting quotes from KCAL9)

``With a simple magnifying glass (police) can read that identifying number ... and determine who purchased that ammunition,'' said Sen. Joseph Dunn, D-Garden Grove, who is carrying the Senate version. ``This is a tremendous benefit for law enforcement.''

The Senate sent the measure to the Assembly on a 21-14 vote, while the Assembly proposal by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, passed 41-37 despite heavy opposition from gun groups. Both passed by one vote.

Ammunition manufacturers said that Dunn's bill will either force them to abandon the lucrative California market or force them to install unaffordable technology to mark the 8 billion bullets they make each year.

The bill would punish anyone possessing unmarked ammunition outside their home after July 2007, though Dunn said he is working with law enforcement to amend the bill so owners could use older bullets at firing ranges.

"A law abiding citizen has nothing to fear,'' said Sen. Jack Scott, D-Pasadena, comparing the markings to the use of fingerprints or DNA in crime solving.

Dunn's bill would require purchasers to pay up to a halfpenny per bullet to fund record-keeping by the state Department of Justice on every handgun-caliber bullet made or sold in California. Vendors would pay up to $50 a year to register. Rifle ammunition would be exempted, though some calibers are used in both handguns and long guns.

Opponents of Koretz's bill said criminals could file down the guns to remove the microstamping or use revolvers, which don't eject shell casings.

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, said Koretz' bill would make it easier to frame someone by spreading cartridges around a crime scene that hadn't come from the shooter's gun.

Just so you remember, you Californians: Jack Scott, Joe Dunn, and Assembly sponsor Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood). Also, remember the opponent Todd Spitzer ... well, he's a Republican named Spitzer; he should be expected to have a more rational perspective, because of his political affiliation and also because of his last name.