Let me explain something for you. Yes, I very much discriminate against illegal aliens. I'm not a racist, but I resent anyone who's arrgance is sufficient to think that breaking the law is their right. I see illegal aliens as criminals on the same level as home invaders and rapists. They go where they don't belong, illegaly, and do waht they want, flagrantly, and see it as their very right. Explain to me, liberal or conservative, exactly how it is justifiable to not discriminate against law breakers violating tenets our society is built on. Should we give pedophiles another chance? I, personally won't protest the jailing of a thief.

An interesting article poped up on the Harvard Law Bulletin. http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2007/summer/feature_3.php

Basically it's about what could happen if the Parker vs DC case goes to the SCOTUS. To be honest, it dosen't look good. While we've gotten caught up in pro gun vs anti gun rights, we didn't pay enough attention to what type of pro gun people we were getting into power. While many, like the NRA, see guns as something that we have a right to, they don't see the need for us to have assult weapons or, well, basically just anything other than hunting arms. Call it the Zumbo blind spot if you will. Yes, as Ted Nugent showed you can use assult rifles to hunt, but this is still ignoring the purpose of firearms ownership, that of personal protection.

Since you can't possibly be legaly or morraly justified in shooting someone in self defense at 500 yards, a hunting rifle is overpowered and too slow to be useful for personal defense. The powerfull round has increased energy up close so it's more likely to overpenetrate and hit something on the far side, and has a significantly higher probability of killing. Also working the bolt, getting on target up close with a long, heavy barreled weapon, and the increased recoil, all make the weapon far less practical for self defense. Handguns and assult rifles chambered in intermediate cartridges like the 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 are far less leathal but still effective at stopping an attack. The smaller, weaker round also demands less barrel length and dosen't require as heavy duty of an action. This makes for a more compact and lighter weapon that is still controlable due to the much lighter recoil of the smaller cartridge.

Of course this is still a massive oversimplification, but the fact is, I can put meat on the table with my bow as well as with a rifle, but for self defense, a good handgun or assult rifle is the best for the job. I'll leave you with a thought from the bulletin:

"Froman had nothing to do with guns until, some 25 years ago, someone tried to break into her Los Angeles home. “I was terrified,” she says. “It was a real epiphany for me, for someone who had never been a victim of crime, who never thought I needed to protect myself.” The next day, she walked into a gun shop to purchase a weapon. She has been a staunch gun advocate ever since."

Got an interesting email from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The OSHA regulation proposed, I told you about last week is open to public comment only untill the 12th of this month. SAAMI and the NSSF are seeking a 60-day extension. You can read about it at the NSSF website. The were even nice enough to create a form letter to fill out or use as a template for us. If you don't mind taking a few minutes. Open it up, fill it in and fax it to (202) 693-1648 and include the docket number OSHA–2007–0032 on the cover sheet.

This regulation is so briliant that it would not only cut off ammunition supplied to civilians, but also to law enforcement and the military, since it limits production and transportation of ammunition and components. It really amazes me that in a time of undeclared war, as we have, that one part of the government can be so stupid as to actually try and cut off the ammunition supply to our troops. I'm suddenly hoping to find online instructions or something to the proper techniques involved of manufacturing nitro-cellulose and primers in forms useable for propelling lead projectiles safely. I know it's not as safe as using store bought powder, but if there is no longer such a thing, then what choice have we? Why am I not supprised that a government agency whose existance is specifically justified as being for safety, is poised to endanger so many lives.

Not everyone understands how one group can hate another for generations. I remember growing up and haveing a friend who was Croatian. One day his dad found out I'm a Serb and he was forbidden to ever even speak to me again. In fact a few years later he attacked me in front of my own home.



This is how hate is instilled in children. This is why there were so many people that even one generation ago trully belived that blacks weren't as good as whites here in the US. And now this is how a new generation grows up in the middle east hating Jews, and Americans, and everything we stand for. And this actually becomes institutionalised, like common knowledge, unquestioned without reason. This is what we must overcome in the world.

Can someone that reads me occasionally cross post this to the guns community. I'm banned but there are plenty of people on there that reload and would probably like to know this (read it and you decide).

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=14100

The long story short version is that OSHA will effectivley ban shipping of "explosives", which would include black powder and nitrocelulose, by the major shipping companies (UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.) and require it to only be shipped in bulk by common carriers already doing that. What this translates to is no more reloading supplys unless your gun store can afford to buy in bulk, higher prices of both realoding supplies and ammo in general as it also includes very significant restrictions on how it is to be treated in shipping (constant attendance, hazmat certified forklift drives, severe cargo segregation, etc.).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56414

There's complete audio of the interview on there as well, though it's split in half. What it got me thinking about is how many elected officials actually know what they're voting for. It seems to me like Voinovich had someone explain most of the jot points of the bill and tell him it's good or bad, and that's it.

The other thing I found disturbing, frankly, was Mr. Voinovich's statements about intimidataion. He says that he's had his constituents inform him that if he votes for a bill, in this case the illegal alien amnesty bill, the they will not vote for him. His reaction is that he will not be intimidated! Well sir, let me tell you something. You're not sent to Washington to do what you think is best based on your innatentive comprehension, regardles of what the people want... you're there to do what your electorate tells you to. I'm just disturbed and annoyed that people like that are elected.

MARK YOUR CALENDAR FOR NEXT SATURDAY.

As you may already know, the vicious terrorism that threatens the
US is performed by radical Muslims from the middle east. Did you
know that it is a sin for a Muslim male to see any woman other
than his wife naked, and that he must commit suicide if he does.
So next Saturday at 4 PM. Eastern Time all American women are
asked to walk out of their house completely naked to help weed out
any neighborhood terrorists.

Circling your block for one hour is recommended for this
anti-terrorist effort.

All men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in front of
their house to prove they are not Muslims, and to demonstrate they
think it's okay to see nude women other than their wife and to
show support for all American women.

Since Islam also does not approve of alcohol, a cold 6-pack at
your side is further proof of your anti- terrorist sentiment.

The American government appreciates your efforts to root out
terrorists and applauds your participation in this anti-terrorist
activity.

God bless America.

This is actually a photo I took a long time ago, but I ran across some of my old stuff while going through some of my burned DVD's. In October 2003, I took a mountain bike trip with a group of my good friends and my brother. The third morning of doing White Rim Trail I woke at dawn and decided to photograph the sunrise. As it turns out, though I didn't know it at the time, there was a massive forrest fire in California that helped contribute to a particularly spectacular sunrise. I hope you enjoy it.

( High res photo behind cut )

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

A few weeks ago I screwed up and posted something to the guns community that didn't belong there. I was banned within minutes. After waiting to see if I would get any, admittedly deserved, email or messages reproving me and/or letting me know that I did wrong and not getting one, I attempted to contact the community admins to apologize and see if I can get a second chance. Since I’m specifically banned from posting to all community posts, I can’t post to the contact the admins thread, and I never got any reply to an email I sent to the address listed. Since I've been unsuccessful, now, after several years of interacting with that particular community, I've removed myself. It's just frustrating to see posts I'd like to comment on and not even be able to do that.

Oh well, I screwed up and I'm gone. I can't really say it's unfair. I'm glad I've at least got the friends I've made of the community and, on the upside, I took the opportunity to browse some of the other communities and joined several that seem interesting. When I originally joined, I only knew how to find stuff by pulling up friend's profiles and linking to interesting stuff that way. I've learned allot since then, and LJ's actually made quite a few improvements as well. I'll probably have to spend the next few months weeding out the communities until I'm down to the ones I really like but that's half the fun of LJ anyway.

NSFW if you're worried about language, other than that it's pretty amusing.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56063

One of Robert A. Heinlein's favorite phrases is TINSTAAFL... There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The basic economic principal that anything costs someone something. If you pay less somewhere the difference in money has to be reflected somewhere in the chain.

Several of my friends and I have been dodging Chinese products for a while knowing this, but it's nice to have it confirmed. The problem is that we've been so used to buying the cheapest version of a product off the shelf, even if the price difference is only a small percentage, that companies have stopped or seriousy reduced stock of other products, making it VERY difficult. Otherwise to lower our price many companies have moved production, or more realistically farmed it out since China is still a communist country, over there. I always liked Husky tools. It was a line like Craftsman, except that when Sears started reducing the lifetime exchange warranty to hand tools only, Husky kept doing it for all tools. Rescently a friend was buying a wrench set, I of course suggested he look at Husky. I was informed that they are made in China. I actually argued, then went to the local Lowe's to check. Sure enough, my favorite brand of US made tools is now imported from China.

In and of itself, discriminating from one country is a political decision, but personal experiance has taught me that Chinese manufactured tools are softer than their US made equivelants. This means that they fail under high load, like trying to break loos rusty bolts, they deform rapidly which results in rounding off hardware, and worse of all when they fail you genereally tend to smash knuckles and fingers. I ask you, is the annoyance and pain really worth saving $20 on a wrench set? Keep in mind the extra $20 also gets you tools that your gradkids will wind up using.

72%Mingle² - Free Online Dating

'What will your obituary say?' at QuizGalaxy.com

"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity."
-- James Madison (Federalist No. 46, 29 January 1788)

When the founding fathers concived of this country, they intended for a weak central govenment, one that only did very specific tasks and nothing else. It was to provide protection for the country, deal with other countries in general, settle disputes between the states, and make sure the states traded fairly with each other. That's it! Today the federal government owns much of the property in some of the states and employs about 3 million people just to keep up with all the laws and regulations that it has created.

For a long time individual regulatory agencies, like the EPA had the ability to make up, declare, rules as they saw fit. "From such and such date, no car my emit more than this much CO2", for example. In 1996 Congress finally realised that rulemaking was getting out of hand and passed a law that from then on, rulemaking must go through the full legislative process. That was a great first step, but I think the next should be that the rules that have been made before 1996 must each be submitted through that same process or be voided in the next 5 years. Well, personally, I'd like to see a branch of the govenrment that does nothing but void or repeal laws. Think of it as an oposite house of representatives. 1/3 vote minimum to void a law, 1/2 minimum to repeal it. If a third of the country can't agree that a law is worth keeping it needs to be done on the state or local level or not at all.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/did-city-hall-fund-a-gun-runner/16534/

Well here's a shock!!! A gang member and seller of illegal firearms is an anti-gun activist. Do you suppose he's making his criminal life easier and more profitable by disarming the law abiding while arming the criminals of society? And not just arming them, but doing it with style with fully automatic firearms and suppressors which we, the law abiding are not permited. What could be worse then that... how about the city of LA giving him $1.5 million of tax money to help accomplish his objective!?! Man I feel better about being disarmed already.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban."

But an analysis by a senior coalition official, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, concludes there is clear evidence of Iran's involvement.

"This is part of a considered policy," says the analysis, "rather than the result of low-level corruption and weapons smuggling."

Iran and the Taliban had been fierce enemies when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, and their apparent collaboration came as a surprise to some in the intelligence community.

"I think their goal is to make it very clear that Iran has the capability to make life worse for the United States on a variety of fronts," said Seth Jones of the Rand Institute, "even if they have to do some business with a group that has historically been their enemy."

The coalition analysis says munitions recovered in two Iranian convoys, on April 11 and May 3, had "clear indications that they originated in Iran. Some were identical to Iranian supplied goods previously discovered in Iraq."

The April convoy was tracked from Iran into Helmand province and led a fierce firefight that destroyed one vehicle, according to the official analysis. A second vehicle was reportedly found to contain small arms ammunition, mortar rounds and more than 650 pounds of C4 demolition charges.

A second convoy of two vehicles was spotted on May 3 and led to the capture of five occupants and the seizure of RPG-7mm rockets and more than 1,000 pounds of C4, the analysis says.

Also among the munitions are components for the lethal EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles, the roadside bombs that U.S. officials say Iran has provided to Iraqi insurgents with deadly results.

"These clearly have the hallmarks of the Iranian Revolution Guards' Quds force," said Jones.

The coalition diplomatic message says the demolition charges "contained the same fake U.S. markings found on explosives recovered from insurgents operating in the Baghdad area."

"We believe these intercepted munitions are part of a much bigger flow of support from Iran to the Taliban," the message says.

The Taliban receives larger supplies of weapons through profits from opium dealing, officials say, but the Iranian presence could be significant.

"It means the insurgency in Afghanistan is likely to be prolonged," said Jones. "It would be a much more potent force."