When You Shouldn't Own a Gun

The Armed Canadian has a post up on when you shouldn't own a gun.

I can't say I disagree with his logic.

A gun is not a magic talisman. It does not resolve any situation by its mere presence, in fact, it escalates situations. This story speaks to the self-defense mindset. Having the mindset of self defense will do more for you than replacing it with a gun. If you're not prepared to use your gun in a defense situation, don't pick it up.

If you don't have the mindset, you owe it to yourself and your loved ones to learn it.

I've said it before; buying a gun doesn't make you safe.
Learning how, when, and why to use it does.

Not with a bang...

From The Liberty Sphere, The Bush Betrayal of Gun Owners

Since 2002, a whopping 85% of firearms manufacturers in America have been forced to close their doors for good.

85% is a HUGE number. In fact, it's almost an unreal number. When was the last time the government shut down 85% of ANY market? I like to think I'm up on these kinds of things, and I knew the ATF was incredibly overzealous, but 85% is just beyond anything I could have even guessed.

Note that the alarming rate of shut-downs of gun manufacturers by the ATF coincides with the election of George W. Bush.

However, the Clinton Administration is every bit as culpable. From 1994-2005, 80% of gun dealers were forced out of business. Eight of those years were under the Clinton Administration.

I'm not going to go so far as to suggest Bush doesn't want us to have guns, (I know Clinton didn't) but in the face of numbers like these and the public revelations of unprofessional, questionable, and criminal conduct by the ATF, his silence speaks volumes. But I guess he shouldn't concern himself with something Democrats aren't currently screaming at the top of their lungs about.

The statistic that nails the Bush Administration is that from 2001 until 2006, the number of gun dealers who have had their licenses revoked by the ATF has risen by 6 times the number of revocations in the previous six years.

This is the endgame. These are the final moves to end private gun ownership in America.

The ATF will continue charging gun shops with minor paperwork errors or improper record storage (after they change their record storage rules), and make it impossible to run a gun shop in America. Not shops that sell "Assault Weapons" or "Saturday Night Specials", EVERY GUN SHOP. Big guns, little guns, fat guns, skinny guns.

There won't be a call to arms, or a challenge of confiscation.

They'll make it impossible to profitably sell guns, then they'll impose restrictions similar to those on registered assault weapons in California, and deny the ability to transfer your firearms to anyone else (family included).

Private gun ownership in America will end, not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Never to return until the inevitable second civil war. There WILL be a second civil war, because any government who must intrude into our liberties to protect us from ourselves has only one final form. It's not a utopia of love and peace. It's tyranny, and its only a matter of time. There's only one way to fight tyranny, and it doesn't involve love and peace either.

Good fucking luck to all of us. We're going to need it.

Hat tip to JR.

Unpopular people have no rights.

I said before that we should judge our justice system by how it treats our most hated individuals, and I stand by that comment.

Judge issues order against self-proclaimed pedophile

Why is he a "self-proclaimed pedophile" and not just a pedophile? Because he has done nothing wrong. He has expressed that he exhibits deviant behavior, but no law has been broken. Opponents are quick to add "THAT WE KNOW OF!" to the end of that last statement, and I'd like to note that those same opponents have not kidnapped, tortured, murdered, and chopped up any hookers THAT WE KNOW OF!

So what orders were issued against this guy for being unpopular and professing to enjoy deviant behavior?

• McClellan is not allowed within 10 yards of a minor child under the order.
  
• He may not harass, threaten, follow or loiter around any minor child.
  
• He also may not photograph, videotape or post on the Internet images of a minor child without parental consent.

Do you even know when you're within 30 feet of a minor? I wonder where he lives and whether or not people may pass by his place of residence with their children? Even within 30 feet of where he sleeps? How do you suppose he'll drive next to other cars possibly full of minors? How will he eat in a restaurant? Will he be "following" a minor if he's walking down the street while a minor 200 yards away walks in the same direction? I can almost hear supporters of this order saying; "It's not my problem how he eats or drives to work or where he lives!" That's probably why some of these insane requirements for "the most evil of the evil" have convicted sex offenders ordered to live under bridges. But hey; it's not their problem. I wonder if some of these supporters have some quality that can be vilified... Probably not. They probably are exactly like everyone else, and do nothing that could possibly offend anyone. At least, not those in the majority... currently... History teaches us nothing. (though not for lack of trying) Let me remind you; these requirements are to be imposed on someone who has committed no crime. How long until we start imposing these "safety" restrictions on people who are suspected of being pedophiles? I've posted about the slippery slope before;

You can be forced to live your life as a second class citizen. You can be rejected from living in certain neighborhoods. You can be refused free, private services. You can be tagged like an animal and have your location tracked for life. You can be investigated and raided based on things you put on the internet. You can be investigated and raided based on a picture of you in the newspaper. You can be labeled a terrorist by defending the US constitution. You can be put on a watch list that will allow your 4th amendment rights to be suspended. You can be put on a terrorist watch list on accident. You can be wiretapped without a warrant. You can be jailed out-of-country where rights may be suspended. You can be jailed without due process or ability to defend yourself, do not pass go, do not collect $200. This is not tin-foil hat time. This is now.

I guess now, I can add; You can be forced to live under a bridge. You can be effectively kicked out of a state without being convicted of anything. For this recurring topic I've decided to add a new tag to help people navigate quickly to stories like these. The tag describes this topic at it's very core and is not something people often realize can be attributed to a story of the popular oppression of the unpopular. The tag is hate.

Good fucking luck to all of us. We're going to need it.

What TSA really stands for.

Joe Huffman lays a little bit of reality out. There's a lot of stuff I'm refraining from saying about what these terrorists are doing and how they could accomplish what they want while being at very little risk of being caught, but he covers some of it. There are also a number of questions I have about WHY these terrorists are choosing to fight this war with America differently than it fights its other enemies. But before you start arguing...

It's full disclosure. It works.

Hat tip to Uncle.

At the bottom of the slippery slope.

[tinfoil hat on] No wait, this is already happening.

Myspace gives up "sex offender data".

With the filing of the required subpoenas, MySpace has agreed to supply the names, email addresses and IP addresses of all convicted sex offenders who have set up a profile on the site. While MySpace has deleted all accounts established by people confirmed to have been convicted of such crimes, it has retained all the vital information so it can comply with the subpoenas.

Win/win right? No one likes child molesters, and they shouldn't be allowed on myspace because there are *cough*unsupervised*cough* children on myspace! It only makes sense, and it's for the children!(tm)

I wrote a post a bit ago, Protect the child molesters! because I wanted people to be aware that we should judge our justice system by how it treats our most hated individuals. When we can convict someone of a crime, send them to jail, release them after having served that time, then take steps to make it nearly impossible for that person to get a job or live anywhere while forcing them into second-class (third? forth?) citizenship, and tracking their every move for life, we REALLY need to take a step back and seriously consider the gravity of what we're doing here.

But wait...

While a step in the right direction, Monday's accord only goes so far. The information won't concern sex offenders who aren't registered or are using aliases on the site. Only honest offenders are likely to get caught in the net, it would seem. Offenders who have fibbed while registering their profile can easily slip by, at least for now.

If you're a convicted sex offender, who must register every month or whatever, with your name in every database imaginable, and you plan to lure children to you through myspace, you're probably not going to use your real name. So this action won't even do what it's supposed to do... Except set prescident.

I'm not even going to get into the idea of government stopping you from using a free privately owned service because you might use it in the comission of a crime. What's next? Banning sex offenders from parks, malls, libraries? Where does the list end?

But hey, myspace is just a place for people to hang out and be idiots right? It's not like anyone's getting arrested for things they've posted on myspace.

Matthew Corwin.
Here's a quick news video on what's happened to him.

The student body president at East Los Angeles College, was arrested after students and faculty members contacted authorities in response to his MySpace page showing Corwin in fatigues and holding weapons.

In fatigues??? He's a military vetern, and part-time MP in the US Army Reserve. I'd say the fatigues could be expected.
Holding weapons??? He founded Students for the Second Amendment, a gun enthusiast and advocacy club on campus. Hmmm... One might assume that someone who founded such a club owned... guns?

It's not like he's being railroaded! If he makes bail, he'll be allowed to continue with his life right? Nope. He's been barred from coming within 100 yards of his school, and has been assigned an inordinately high bail.

So they raided him, and charged him with five counts of unlawful assault-weapon sales, four counts of unlawful possession of assault weapons, two counts of possession of a deadly weapon and one count of receiving stolen property. Clearly there was some other evidence than just some pictures on myspace... (right?) Surely, pictures aren't enough for the ATF to set up and execute a raid against someone right? Wrong.

If they raided him, he must have been doing something wrong. Surely there wasn't a rush-to-judgement... Whoops.

"After further investigation by the (federal officials) they determined that the Browning machine .30-caliber was lawful. So we dismissed six counts today. The remaining six counts will be prosecuted," district attorney's office spokeswoman Jane Robison said.

So they dropped 50% of the charges they were going to persue.

So where is this leading? The big T word.

While sex offenders are (somehow) more villified than terrorists, we know who the sex offenders are. They've been tried, convicted, served their time, and live as second (or third) class citizens after being "rehabilitated" in the criminal justice system. Terrorists, however, are anyone and everyone. Which means that we must give the government unchecked powers to weed out the terrorists hiding in our closets and under our beds. Suddenly there exists a "terrorist watch list" which is held in the strictest secrecy by an agency that was just recently created who will speak nothing to how names get on the list or how to get them off the list.

But only terrorists will turn up on a terrorist watch list right? Wrong. Ted Kennedy was perturbed to find himself on the terrorist watch list, and used his connections to get his name removed from the list. After several weeks. If it took someone with as much political clout as Ted Kennedy several weeks to remove his name from this secret list, do you even think it'll be possible for you or me to do so? Do you think they even had a process for doing such a thing? I doubt it.

Barring any mistaken identity or general cock-up, you've got to be planning to blow something up to be labled a terrorist, right? Wrong. According to the Phoenix FBI training manual, possible terrorists may be characterized by the following:

Defenders of the U.S. Constitution against federal government and the UN
Groups of individuals engaging in para-military training
Those who make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution
Those who attempt to police the police
Lone individuals
Rebels

Looks like this was worth of the attention of the NRA, who says here;

Do you believe gun control is a way to remove our ability to protect ourselves? Do you believe the Bill of Rights protects God-given rights, as opposed to granting rights from the government? Do you believe U.S. sovereignty is threatened by the actions and actors at the United Nations?

Congratulations. You might be a domestic terrorist.

Whoops. You've just been wiretapped, had your electronic communications and credit card purchases flagged, and are subject to an overzealous search when attempting to board a plane. Not to mention any other bit of nastyness we the people aren't even aware of.

Can you imagine being on this list if you were someone the government didn't like? Say, an opponent of a particular party, group, or agency?

But it's not like you're going to just get shipped off without any explanation.
Whoops. Bush has suspended writ of habeus corpus.



So what am I trying to say here?

I'm not trying to say anything. It's already been said, and done.

You can be forced to live your life as a second class citizen.
You can be rejected from living in certain neighborhoods.
You can be refused free, private services.
You can be tagged like an animal and have your location tracked for life.
You can be investigated and raided based on things you put on the internet.
You can be investigated and raided based on a picture of you in the newspaper.
You can be labeled a terrorist by defending the US constitution.
You can be put on a watch list that will allow your 4th amendment rights to be suspended.
You can be put on a terrorist watch list on accident.
You can be wiretapped without a warrant.
You can be jailed out-of-country where rights may be suspended.
You can be jailed without due process or ability to defend yourself, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

This is not tin-foil hat time. This is now.

Good fucking luck to all of us. We're going to need it.

UPDATE:
Follow up post on this topic;
Unpopular people have no rights.

Name one example.

There was just a caller into the Larry Elder show who was arguing that republicans were more racist than democrats. This is one of many common misconceptions that everyone believes because everyone else believes it. Larry challenged the caller the way he normally does, he asked him to name ONE example. Personally, I'd ask for two or three, because over the course of time, I'm sure you could find an instance to prove pretty much anything, however, whenever Larry challenges callers in this way the caller always comes up with nothing but insists it to be the truth because that's just the way it is. This time was no different. But this time when the caller failed the challenge, he countered that republicans would probably try harder to NOT be racist because of the perception.

He wasn't pointing out that Republicans are not racist, he was just saying that they'd hide it better by NOT being racist.

He was arguing that they'd be more racist by NOT being racist.

So now we've got an argument that has no support being held by someone who argues that evidence to the contrary is simply put there to hide the truth which bears no evidence other than "it's just common knowledge".

My question to you is as follows,

can these people hear themselves talk?

When do you hang up the phone and think to yourself, "Gee, what if republicans really WEREN'T racist? All the evidence in the world wouldn't convince me of it because I've refused to accept it due to a convenient excuse that all facts and evidence regarding this topic are lies. What have I become?!"

A pawn.

Think for yourself.

Research for yourself.

Figure it out yourself.

Make a decision all by yourself.

I know it's hard, but you can do it.

A NEW CHALLENGAR APPEARS!!!

Just in time for dear old Jack's demise, the hacker community finds a new villain! Say hello to the new guy ready to prevent you from posting things on the internet: Michael Ayers.

Some reading if you want more of the story.

AACS LA: Internet "revolt" be damned, this fight is not over
HD DVD "The Code" Shirt
Breaking: Digg Riot in Full Effect Over Pulled HD-DVD Key Story

Basically, the HD-DVD encryption can be broken by a certain 32 character hex key. Cue the content controller trying to stop people from printing or reproducing the code. Problem is, the code is essentially data. It's almost like saying your car uses the color blue, so anything that's blue is unauthorized reproduction of "trade secrets". Certainly this series of hex characters is a bit more esoteric than the color blue, but all software is made of 1's and 0's, and when displayed in the hex format, this series likely exists in countless places. It's also like patenting the "curve". Things already exist in the world that use curves in countless ways, you can't just say it's illegal to use it because YOU use it!

It's amazing how many parallels you can draw from this and the DeCSS idiocy. Since "data" is not protected speech (due to technically inept law-makers), the code is being reproduced as art, shirts, and in song. It seems the AACS LA can't fire off cease and decists fast enough.

I really enjoyed how Think-Geek approached the problem of fighting these idiotic threats while keeping themselves from legal action. They've made a shirt which reads the following:

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-bd
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-be
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-bf
[redacted]
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c1
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c2
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c3

People knowledgeable in such things know what key is missing without it having to be printed! Genius.

On a completely unrelated note, I've written a random number generator, but it doesn't seem to be working... Every time I run it, it just returns the same hex characters over and over again! Here's some sample output...
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0

Anyone know how to fix this?

Choose the impliment of your destruction

So, you'd like to argue with me about guns. Fair enough. Though I ask that you not take offense to my assumption that you are quite *ahem* outgunned. I hope, however, that you will accept my offer of selecting the argument you wish me to use to unhinge yours, that you may choose ground with which you are familiar. This way, you will harbor no ill-will when you are trounced.

Sir, choose my weapon!

Constitutional wording
Somehow references to "the people" in the first amendment refer to the people. But references to "the people" in the second refer to the states? Yeah. No. And you might want to look up older definitions of the word "regulated." Seems it can also mean armed and ready, or properly managed. The constitution was meant to be read, not interpreted. Hand the amendment to a 5 year old and ask him what it means.

Constitutional intent
Those who penned the 2nd amendment did not just toss it in there for the hell of it. Many of our founding framers spoke very specifically to the necessity and reason behind the second amendment, some felt it to be the most important amendment. They had just finished fighting an oppressive government with guns they refused to give up when the British came to confiscate them. They knew that the evolution of any government ends in oppression, and knew that guns in the hands of citizens would be a constant reminder that oppression would be met with force.

Anachronisms
So, you think the 2nd amendment only refers to mussel loaders which only allow a few shots a minute? We find the intent of the 2nd amendment to allow the people to remain as armed as their government. When the military picks up muskets, the people will too.

Militia
How exactly does the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which
was created 130 years later, in 1917. If the militia is manned by citizens, and a tool of the state, why do they operate on federal land with federally owned weapons, vehicles, and buildings and punish trespassers under federal law? There must be a separation of powers that simply doesn't exist in the national guard.

Crime
Ever wonder why gun control advocates point to "gun crime" specifically to show the success of their legislation? Because regular crime goes up when gun control goes up. It's a dirty little secret that is well kept. Even the slightest effort in research brings up countless instances of increased availability of guns decreasing crime.

Police
The police are not legally required to protect you or come when you call. The only time you'll get an immediate response is when you are in immediate danger, and then you still have to wait for their 5-10 minute "quick" response time. You wouldn't want to spend 30 seconds in the same room as a violent intruder with a knife, why would you choose to spend 5-10 minutes? A gun in the hand is worth 100 armed, trained police officers three blocks away. As for the police controlling some hidden mastery of guns, countless (and I do mean countless) instances prove the fallibility of the police. They are not perfect, and are not the perfect solution.

History
In the world there are countless instances of disarmed populations being oppressed, subjugated, and genocided. We even find flickers of armed resistances causing serious trouble to better armed and better trained oppressors. I have no shortages of arguments here, and always wrap up with the old favorite: "Those who don't learn from history..."

Ease of use
Guns make it easy to kill which is good if you're an underpowered or outnumbered woman on a dark street at night. Should the old and frail not be allowed to protect themselves when they are clearly vulnerable to attacks? Guns equalize. They have the power to equalize a regular citizen with a hardened criminal. I don't suppose you'd be against putting a 90 pound woman on equal footing with a 200 pound rapist?

Sporting Purposes
Strangely the constitution speaks nothing of the recreational shooting of living creatures. Must you make sport of shooting attackers if your life is threatened, or refuse to use the gun in an "unsporting" fashion?

And finally, my least favorite, though likely most effective argument;
Fear
There are about 1.5 million active and reserve duty members of the armed forces (I rounded up). There are 85 million gun owners in America, with 250 million guns. If a conservative estimate of JUST 1% of gun owners are the "cold dead hands" types, they will outnumber the military over 5 to 1. That's before considering that not all members of the military are combat trained, and that only a small percentage of those are suited for urban fighting. One more thing; those "cold dead hands" types are very likely more skilled and more prepared than all but the best shooters in the military. Even if they just stand and fight instead of resorting to guerrilla tactics, their kill ratio will NOT be 1:1. They will likely be in the tens, and may approach the hundreds if they take up an insurgency-style guerrilla role. Most of these types will likely be very smart, very skilled, very well-armed, and very willing to do what they know to be their patriotic duty in taking up arms against a tyrannical government, or die trying.

It ain't pretty, and I don't like talking about it because it scares people, but it's the truth.
Confiscation, logistically, can't work.

So... Choose your fighting ground...

Never Forget

Via the almighty Oleg.

Multiply Virginia Tech by 5

I was reminded of THIS earlier post recounting the very real terrorist threat against our schools.

If this was just ONE student with TWO guns, imagine what an organized TEAM of terrorists armed with automatic weapons could accomplish.

Allow law abiding citizens to be armed wherever they are.
The time for change is NOW.

"this will help students ... feel safe on our campus."

Gun bill gets shot down by panel

HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

This will keep happening until law abiding citizens and students are allowed to carry guns on campus.

Religion and God

I posted this to a board a while ago, and I was reminded of it so I dug it up. I think it's worth sharing...

I don't believe in jesus or any of the other superheros that you read about in books, but I can appreciate why others would. I admit that I hold certain religious beliefs that I can logically explain no more than any preacher of any other religion. It really just comes down to the fact that in my gut (for lack of a better word), my particular beliefs make sense to me, and other beliefs don't. People should be allowed to follow their gut, but shouldn't be forced to believe anything. However it's the responsibility of the people to seriously question their faith until they are truly (and I do mean truly) satisfied that their faith makes sense to them.

I'm agnostic because there's no major religion that believes exactly what I do. I believe in fate, and that we walk a path. I believe that we make decisions along that path that affect the way we live certain parts of our path; but that our overall destination and greater paths cannot be changed. Most of my beliefs come from parts of eastern philosophies (which is oh-so trendy in california, unfortunately). I DO believe that something or someone is out there, but you'd have a hard time convincing me that he or she would love you unconditionally one minute and then banish you to eternal damnation the next. Frankly, I think the creator of the universe would have something better to do.

I don't believe in the religious stick or carrot. You shouldn't dedicate your life to something because you want or don't want.

Oh yeah, I'm 22.
(and don't give me any "you'll change when you get older you young wippersnapper!" BS, because that's just admitting that you could change your own beliefs when you get even older. It doesn't make sense, and beliefs rarely change when you actually think them through the first time.)

Someone commented;

Well wasn't god created in the image of man? or vice a versa or something like that and what is to stop god from having mortal traits

If man can love you one minute and hate you the next what is so unbelievable about god being able to think that way as well ?

Just like a father that gets pissed off as what his kid does. Isn't he the heavenly father ? and are not we his children? do you see my point?

To which I replied...

A father might get mad at his kid for spilling paint in the garage, but he doesn't cast him into a firey pit to be tortured for all eternity. I think you're confusing anger with wrathfulness. And if you're not, and god would banish you forever for spilling paint in the garage, I certainly wouldn't want to believe in a god who was such a dick.

er... frankly... :)

Common sense regulation of the FIRST amendment.

Alright, how's this for a twist you ungrateful 1st-amendment-only supporters. So forgetful of the support you get from 2nd amendment supporters when the time comes to pass more laws restricting gun ownership. Your keyboard chatters as you laugh loudly on your blog, proclaiming one more victory against the "crazed gun nuts"; completely unaware that the amendment you hold so near-and-dear is next on their list.

I'd like to stand up, and be the first to call for "common sense" regulation of our freedom of speech.

In the recent years, and with the advent of the intarweb, it's becoming increasingly apparent that there must be regulation of the freedom of speech. In the wrong hands, the freedom of speech becomes a tool for hate, threats, violence, and deviant behavior such as pedophilia.

Therefore, I'd like to propose the institution of the following "common sense" regulations to put a stop to the misuse of our first, and most precious right. These regulations are penned with the greater good in mind! If it saves just ONE life, it will be worth it.

The following regulations will refer to printed materials, published materials, materials placed on web logs or "blogs", web forums, web sites, chat rooms, and all other forms of digital and physical media availability. Hereafter referred to as "posts."

Carry: Carrying materials in the form of physical media such as pamphlets, posters, or notices, or in digital media such as portable flash memory cards, hard drives, or laptops, must be approved by the Sheriff of the county in which the proposed carrier of this information resides. Permits shall be issues on a "may issue" basis, and may be revoked at the Sheriff's discretion with no explanation required. Pamphlets and posters have been known to incite riots and violence and must be controlled and managed. Digital media can be transferred or copied in seconds to others who may then transfer the information to others, increasing the affected population exponentially. This rapid dissemination of information must be controlled for the safety of our population.

Assault sites: Sites which exceed regulation length, size, breadth of information, or approved content limits will be classified as "Assault Sites." In the past "blogs" have contained a preponderance of information and many varying topics. Limits will control the amount of people who view a post or "blog", and word limits for the amount of information being made available. Limits will also control the offensive appearance of these sites, while these appearances don't affect the content or ability of the site, they serve only to strike fear into readers. There is no reason anyone but professionals should have control over this much information potentially available to our children. If you want an "Assault site", join the reporter corp.

Automatic operation: Various tools allow the reproduction of rapid amounts of information in milliseconds. Tools such as "copy" and "paste", which are likely available on your computer at home and therefore available to our children, allow the high-speed reproduction of information. These tools endow too much power to disseminate copious amounts of information at a "rapid-fire" pace. This kind of speed of publishing has no legitimate civilian use, and should be left to the professionals.

Manufacturing: There are various free and pay publishing tools available on-line. These tools allow the average citizen to publish content. These tools will be controlled and regulated through legislation. Because these tools will be under control, and managed for content based on these rules, people will not be allowed to manufacture or program their own publishing tools. If left unchecked, people could create tools beyond our control, and subvert the common sense regulations imposed on this new media.

Filter bypass ("cop killer") posts: These posts subvert, bypass, and "kill" filters that protect our children from objectionable content. These posts are defined as any post which uses misleading language or implies subject matter or topics it may not directly address. These sites are made to attack our children, and must be stopped. I realize there will be an issue positively determining which sites are attempting to subvert any filters of blocking mechanisms, so there will be some inadvertent violations. These site owners are required to maintain a clear understanding of the laws, and make their content obviously obvious.

Penalty: Any site owners or content providers found in violation of these rules will be brought on felony charges of "Conspiracy to disseminate subversive information." This charge will carry a minimum 3 years and a maximum 30 years in federal prison.

Conclusion: No one loves and appreciates the freedom of speech more than I, which is why I know these laws and regulations are necessary for the preservation of our union. We must think of the children! I know that some will argue that these rules and regulations destroy the freedom of speech, and are open to abuse. To them I say: If you've done nothing wrong; you've nothing to hide.

For those of you unaware, I modeled these idiotic laws after the laws gun owners must already deal with, laws similar to these are already on the books and being enforced. Now that I finish it, I'm a little hesitant to post it. It just seems TOO plausible to me. I'd be more afraid our betters would think my (sad, sad) satire was a great idea, but then I remind myself that as far as they know, the Internet is a series of tubes. (speaking of tubes, net neutrality would make some real strides toward the fictional goals I outlined in this satire. Scary, eh?)


While I'm on the topic, I feel compelled to remind everyone that our rights are not granted by the bill of rights, they are ENUMERATED. It's like saying you have the right to a blue sky. If you revoke the blue sky amendment, the sky will still be blue. The bill of rights doesn't allow us to have our rights, it just reminds everyone that we are endowed by our creator with these inalienable rights.

Fuck ADD pills.

Click for full view.

And now; SHAMELESS SEEDING! Parents should know what their pills are doing.

ADD ADHD attention deficit disorder children, child, kid, Concerta, Ritalin, Metadate, Dexedrine, Adderall

Enlightenment at work

Coworker: "It's ok to lie about sex; I mean, It's not like it was important to national security that we know that Bill was getting a BJ..."

Me: "That is wrong because of one word. Blackmail. You now have dirt on the most powerful man in the world. You don't think that has national security implications?"

Coworker: "... Never thought about it like that."

Me: "Neither did any reporter during that scandal. Why do you think that was?"

Coworker: "Hmm..."

ENLIGHTENMENT DISPENSED, DEPOSIT $1 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL MINUTE.

"Hey! We did our job too!"

Feds Raid 6 Swift and Company Meatpacking Plants in Apparent Illegal Immigration Search

Imagine if they did their jobs for more than 1 day a year... All that needs to be said was said earlier.

AG does his job, (for 6 days) everyone amazed!

Heard about this on the radio earlier today,
Police arrest 10,733 fugitives in U.S.-led sweep
Everyone was impressed and patting themselves on the back, and I couldn't help but think; "Gee, a 6-day sweep nets over 10,000 fugitives... Wonder how many they could get if they worked MORE than 6 days a year...

They've done this kind of BS before, but don't think it was for political reasons; because this was planned "without regard to any political elections coming up." ... er... yeah. Whenever people ask me about filling up my gas tank I always counter with, "Well, it has nothing to do with the phase of the moon, and resent the implication that I assumed you were making!!!

The sad fact is that they've probably had all these leads for months (if not years) before the "sweep" and were just sitting on their hands because... well... who the fuck knows why. Suddenly, something happens, and "Hey presto! Time to do our job!" Then in 6 days they pick up over 10,000 fugitives!

10,000 fugitives? Damn. That sure is a lot. I mean; it seems like a lot. How many fugitives did they pick up in the year of 2005? 38,000?! WTFZ!? So, in 6 days they picked up ONE THIRD of the fugitives than they did in the entire year of 2005?!

The US Marshals called this "Operation FALCON III" which sounds very cool, and exciting. If you follow that link and start reading about some of the scum they picked up, try not to let your blood boil from the realization that these scumbags were wandering around free up till Oct 21st because the US Marshals/AG saw fit to sit on whatever information they had. The blood of any crimes or attacks perpetrated by these bastards between the time the US Marshals got their tips and the time they actually followed up is on the hands of the US Marshals. (but lets try not to harp on that m'kay?)

But don't worry, I'm sure they had a good reason. I mean, they probably had to find a good production company, buy all those digital cameras to get some sweet action shots, and pics of the bad guys, not to mention all that loot, plus you gotta find someone to make a cool flash animation banner to go with the cool name you came up with... Then, the nation-wide press release to make sure everyone knows that you, indeed, did your job. Go check out their kick-ass FALCON III website it's chock full of links, pictures, video, and tax dollars.

I'd send an e-mail to the U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, but I'm pretty sure he's too busy masturbating in self-satisfaction at how the press is lapping all this nonsense up.

I just CAN'T WAIT to see their fugitive apprehension numbers for this year. I mean, 10,000 fugitives in 6 days, is like 1667 fugitives a day, and 1667 multiplied by 365 days is like 608,333 fugitives per year... Wait, how many did they get last year? 38,500? Hmmm... that's only 105 a day... Well, I'm sure their numbers will be much higher. I mean; they've demonstrated that they are capable of reaching those kinds of numbers, so why wouldn't we expect them to have similar numbers when we're not DAYS away from an election???

What? Huh? Oh.

Protect the child molesters!

Disclaimer! This is, upon review, a tad alarmist; so take it with a grain of salt. It's really only meant to open avenues of thought.

No, don't protect the child molesters! They're not people! They do bad things so they don't deserve to be treated like the rest of us! Not convicted? He just got a good lawyer! WE KNOW WHAT HE DID!

When using examples of unconstitutional treatment I regularly use child molesters as the victims. This always elicits perplexed looks from the person I'm talking to. Their eyebrows irk into odd shapes and they think loudly enough for me to hear, "Are you actually defending child molesters?!"

Of course not. Child molesters are the lowest of the low, and should die slow, tortuous deaths; but they can't. Because they have rights too. And they should ALWAYS have rights, because once one group of people doesn't have rights, more are sure to follow.

Why choose child molesters? Because EVERYBODY hates child molesters. And since everybody hates them, who cares if the constitutional lines get blurred a bit, right? I care. And you should too. Because it'll be child molesters one day, then drug dealers, then drug abusers, then Jihadists, then gun owners, then religious fanatics, then Christians, then, then, then, then... Until it's too late, and everyone has given enough power to the government to protect them, constitution-be-damned, from these terrible people, that the people won't be able to control the government.

Headlines you'll never read:
"Community outraged at unconstitutional treatment of suspected child molester"
"Protesters rally for fair treatment of KKK members"

Let me be clear, once again. If someone molested a child; they should be tried to the fullest extent of the law. But if they didn't, they should not be. Sadly, this is not always the case (on both accounts). No one likes child molesters, but we have to make sure our hatred of some people doesn't blind us to the fact that they have the same rights that we do.

The harbinger of these grim milestones are raids.

Raids are great. The police bust in, take care of the bad guys, get the goods, and make the world safe for democracy. They look great in the paper, praise the police agency, and can earn high accolades for politicians. Hence, everybody wants to do them whenever they can. Raids are based off some form of information (hopefully!) that leads the police to believe that someone at some residence is committing some crime, and needs to be stopped. Raids use the element of surprise, so they can't be expected to announce themselves, or make otherwise make you aware they wish to forcefully enter your residence. But that's OK right? I mean; everyone gets a hard-on when they get the chance to nail a child molester/cop killer/serial rapist/melon baller/(your occupation here), and when everyone's got their ninja suits on, they can't be bothered with things like paperwork, warrants, or correct addresses!

Heaven forbid an "informant" blurts out your address, or someone plea bargains with your name and address (or just a random one that happens to be yours), or they just plain have the wrong house. Were any of these things to happen, (or a number of other possibilities) you'd find yourself on the receiving end of one of these foaming-at-the-mouth, masturbatory, no-knock, "high-risk" raids. Just hope they don't accidentally kill your unarmed, hand-cuffed, subdued child.

But it's OK right? Just because they beat up that sex offender or rapist or car thief or funny lookin' guy from down the street, doesn't mean that it'll happen to me!

Right?

Lets go for a ride on the slippery slope, shall we?

As peoples' resentment of certain groups of people leads them to tolerate some infringement of rights, the definition of these groups will begin to fuzz, and include more people. The hate will spread to nearby groups, and groups not even closely related (but still perceived as "evil"). As people become more angry at these groups, they'll demand crack-downs, and aggressive pursuit of these "criminals". Which will lead to accidents that will be dismissed by the public, and defended by the prosecutors as necessary evils to rid the community of these terrible groups. Politicians will stir up anger in order to stir up votes, and soon, when nothing will slake the hate of the public, it will be too late. A state of emergency will be declared, and we'll be left with the most extreme of leaders who maintain their power by maintaining the anger, fear, and hate that keeps them in power.

The slope is slippery, and I sure don't like child molesters either, but we have to manage our hate, lest we begin to fear someone hating us.

"Big Tobacco" Hatemongering

I hate the word hatemongering. It's an alarmist word that rarely fits its use. But for this, I make an exception.

A review of the latest anti-tobacco ad
Scene: Open slowly zooming into an office, with a voice over indicating a job interview is in progress. Cut to inside the office where a balding executive interviews a prospective employee across a large desk.
Executive: "You're resume is impressive, but I want to know if you can think on your feet... Here you've got your affluent gay couple, disenfranchised African-American, and a potato salad... (it doesn't really say that, I just can't remember what it says) Who would you market our new cigarettes to?"
Interviewee thinks for a moment then spots a picture behind the executive, and points to it: "How about those guys?"
Executive: "Those are my kids. You'd market to my kids?"
Interviewee: "... I just-"
Executive: "That's just the kind of out-of-the-box thinking we're looking for!"

Gee guys, after watching that ad, I'm not sure WHAT to think of "Big Tobacco"... While the ad was about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the back of the head, I think they could have gone a bit farther. Let me take a crack at it...

Scene: Hell. Red colored, cave-like walls, with fire flaring up from the ground, the wall layout is similar to that of the previous ad. The camera slowly zooms towards an open door with a voice-over indicating a job interview is in progress. Cut to inside the office where Satan, prince of darkness, interviews a prospective employee across a large desk made of human bones.
Satan: Now that we've finished dining on the souls of unborn children, we can continue the interview. Now, as an employee of "Death-Bringing Tobacco," who would you market our cigarettes to?
Interviewee: CHILDREN!
Satan: Of course, but how would you do it differently?
Interviewee: I would use candy flavors, bright colors, cartoon characters, ice-cream trucks, and prenatal nicotine injections!
Satan: I'm getting a boner just thinking about it! You're hired, and if I may add; we sure like getting children addicted to cigarettes!
Interviewee: Hahaha! We are bad men!
Satan: Muhahaha! We're worse than child molesters!
The two laugh maniacally for a few seconds.
Satan: Lets go punch babies, and cut the legs off puppies!
Interviewee: I brought my brass knuckles!

I think that would just about sum up the intent of the commercial. I realize that everyone wants someone to hate, and people don't have a problem hating someone unpopular, but some of these commercials take it a bit too far.

I'm smart enough to know fear/hatemongering when I see it. It's childish, it's uncalled for and, frankly, insulting that they think they can convince people with these ads.

I don't smoke (unless I'm on fire), and have no strong feelings about the tobacco industries, but I don't like to see groups (smokers) being beat up simply because what they do is unpopular. Honestly, the only convincing reason I'd have to take up smoking would be to piss off the Californians around me. I can't think of any better way to exercise my right to do unto myself as I please than by doing something hazardous to myself!

If you've got an argument, use facts to make the point. Making unbelievable situations up to prove your point is a good way to lose credibility.

Dear Senator,

Dear Friend:

Californians know that a devastating earthquake could occur anywhere in the state at any time. And we also know that a major earthquake would cause hundreds or thousands of deaths, widespread homelessness, and massive property damage.

Although Californians are aware of these important facts, somehow the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) still do not seem to have gotten the message. Last September, I requested a copy of the FEMA disaster recovery plan for California. After several months, I was disappointed to receive a general reply outlining the things that might happen following a generic disaster.

Recently, following a new report from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on the geologic stress that is present especially along the southern portions of the San Andreas Fault -- and the likelihood that a major earthquake is, in fact, overdue -- I again asked for a detailed plan for actions that would follow an earthquake. In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, I have again requested a plan specific to California on the steps that would be taken in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake to respond to widespread destruction.

Sadly, it appears that little has changed at FEMA in the year following Hurricane Katrina. The agency appears to be woefully unprepared for an earthquake of major magnitude and the devastation that would follow in California. You can count on me to continue to demand a substantive plan that is designed to keep Californians safe in the days following an earthquake.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Everyone saw how poorly FEMA did in New Orleans, are you really going to count on them? Saying, "Well, FEMA did such a good job with New Orleans, I figured they should handle southern California's disaster plan." after the big one hits isn't going to earn you any votes.

Everyone saw how supportive and helpful private companies like Walmart (http://tinyurl.com/9o6yu) and Home Depot (http://tinyurl.com/qjra7) were, and how much time and money they and their employees donated. Contrast this with the amount of money FEMA took from my paycheck in taxes, and redistributed to the not-so-needy (http://tinyurl.com/peax8) to rebuild (http://tinyurl.com/r9kzf) their lives with big screen TVs and strip club visits. Not that I feel they would have benefitted from some free money, but if you think you can give $10,000 to a poor family to make them middle class; try it, and check back on them in a few months.

I did enjoy your last statement, "You can count on me to continue to demand a substantive plan..." I don't count on you to write letters. I can write letters! I count on you to take action and make people accountable! If you want me to vote for you (and I never have before), take action, and show us voters that you are taking action. After the big one hits, and people are left wondering who's to blame; you, shaking your head and pointing at FEMA is not really going to compel anyone to vote for you. The public doesn't trust FEMA, and the fact that you do, makes everyone wonder if you were paying attention.

You can start convincing me how hard you work, by showing me that law abiding citizens are not going to be disarmed by force (http://tinyurl.com/nzqbb) and left defenseless (http://tinyurl.com/o9voy) from roaming gangs, rapists, and murderers, while the police are off trying to disarm other citizens as they were in Katrina. You could also show me where the government is given the power to take money from tax payers, and give it to people who chose not to be prepaired for natural disasters. The job of relief and aid is better left to the people who can do it well, like the Red Cross, and other charities, not a wasteful, unaccountable branch of the governement.

Earn my vote!

Respectfully,
XXXX XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX XXXXXX, Ca