Musings on Illegal Immigration, Part 1

To say that there has been a firestorm of opposition to the proposed amnesty for illegal aliens currently being "debated" in the Senate would be an understatement. When you see pages of comments on the Washington Post website opposing an editorial in supporting the bill, that's telling. When a leftist rag like the Post can't even up drum support of their readers, that shows they've gone clean off the reservation.

What is very surprising in the past few days in blogs, comments and places like the Post is the number of times I have seen the words "civil war" or variations on it. I've seen it several times on right wing/conservative leaning blogs (where I am not surprised) but to see such things on the Post website is interesting.

For example, here is a comment from the post by a fellow named JLeopold1:

How much longer will we the members of the working/taxpaying Middle Class continue to suffer the excesses of the Washington elitist intelligentsia that continues to position the interests of foreigners, foreign nations and multinationals above our own?

When will we awaken to the fact that neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party affluent representatives are in fact defending or preserving our interests?

When will we recognize that this arrogant intelligentsia, looks upon our needs and expectations with disdain and us as simple pawns in their self-serving power games?

We, the Middle Class members of this society are becoming a class of taxpayers without representation as the members of these two identical parties are ignoring and mocking our Voices as exemplified by this corrupt amnesty sham disguised as a humanitarian priority solely designed to benefit non-law abiding foreign intruders in our shore and their exploiters.

If our politicians do believe that laws are to be obeyed to the letter, it is high time that we the legal citizens of this country rebel accordingly by refusing to pay into the national coffers used by these politicians in ways that are detrimental to our Middle Class interests.

Our founders advised us that when those elected to represent us fail to do so that we have an moral and civil obligation to stand up and rebel.

It is time for all of us in the Middle Class to unite and create political parties and representation that are focused on our economic needs and expectations and not those of foreigners, countries and multinational corporations or the socio-political absurdities of the arrogant intelligentsia that hypocritically claims to represent us.

Since both parties are scorning us, the time has come for a new political paradigm!

Emphasis is mine.

On the furthest end of my conservative/Libertarian leanings, I agree with him. Please note, I am not advocating open rebellion or insurrection against the Government! What I am saying is the Founders did state it was our option of last resort, as it was for them, if all other avenues of grievance and redress have failed the common man. We are not there yet.

But the fact words like "rebel" and "civil war" are being mentioned should send a shiver of fear down the back of any politician. The reason is because the ones who are saying it are generally the ones who have the immediate means to carry it out and would feel they have nothing left to lose after being betrayed by their Government.

I will not discuss this line of thought further other than to have you ponder the question of at what point do you think the American citizenry would decide than our system has failed us and uprising in any form would occur? It could be a mob of millions marching in sustained protest on the National Mall and refusing to disperse or armed assault by a dedicated group of individuals firing the first shots of a second Revolutionary War or anything imaginable in between.

For some folks, passage of this immigration bill and the attendant shocks to society that would follow in the next decade or so would be the spark that ultimately sets it off. I can certainly see why if our elected Representatives choose to ignore the will of the majority of their constituents who they elected to represent their interests and rather sell them out wholesale to criminals.

But what I want to talk about is a meme that is travelling about with regards to illegal immigration. It is not mine nor is it new. It is the idea that the problem of illegal immigration is so bad that we cannot solve it except to grant some kind of legal status and promise to do better next time. The meme says we can't deport 12-20 million illegals, we can't seal the border effectively, we don't have the means to enforce our laws so capitulation to criminals is our only option.

You can probably guess based on my past posts what I think of that meme.

I find this meme disgusting and here's why: You're telling me that a nation without our high technology 65 years ago had the ability to build 7100 ton cargo ships from nothing to loaded with cargo and ready to sail at the average rate of one every two days month in, month out for four years but can't find the means to round up 12 million people and truck them back to the border?!?

I can tell you we don't lack the means. What our government lacks is the will.

I agree that trying to tackle all of the issues present with illegal immigration are daunting, frightening and require hard choices and painful decisions for everyone involved. As a result, if none take place, we are no better off than we are now and the problem will only continue to get worse.

Anyone who is looking at the issue all agree on one thing in order for us to start dealing with the problem: We must get control of the border. From there, all other problems can be dealt with one at a time. We need to dam the source of the foul water that is threatening to drown us before we can start to pump it out and clean things up.

Frankly, even the most staunch anti-illegal immigration folks of the "deport them all" mindset are willing to concede the idea that we might be willing to grant our current crop of illegals some kind of legal status on the condition that the Government actually do something concrete about the borders. Not words, not promises, not a foot-high tarp wall but actual, tangible, effective security. They want action. Until then, expect resistance because until something is done about the border, all they see is a Government willing to reward law-breaking behavior with nothing to stop more in the future and makes a mockery of the "rule of law" that is supposed to exist in this country.

I am one of these people. I am willing to consider a compromise for the illegals already here, as much as it pains me, on two conditions. The first is that we stop the flow of illegals short-term and keep it up long-term. The second is the illegals already here will be given a visa not unlike an H1B and watched like hawks. If they fail in the terms of the visa, they will be rapidly deported. For those of you who don't know, living here on an H1B is indentured servitude. It is very strict, requires an employer to back the person (who also promises to pay the costs of getting them out of here if they screw up) and places severe restrictions on the immigrant's mobility and job options. It is fundamentally a modern form of paid slavery. I spent six years on an H1B so I know what I'm talking about.

If employers want the illegals to work for them at low wages so badly, they can skim off some of their profits and put guarantees to the INS about the conduct of such folks. More importantly, the restrictive nature of such a visa will force the INS to keep very close tabs on such illegals under its guise. Screw up, not submit to the requrements and they're gone. I have no problem with my tax dollars funding such a program of vetting and enforcement for that type of visa.

I doubt there would be many takers in the illegal community on such a program. It would be so restrictive to actually make them think life back home will be better. I can think of all kinds of ways such a low-skilled H1B-type program could be streamlined and run effectively to make sure the illegals understood that there is a cost attached to their "reward" and paying it for several years won't be fun.

That is something to think about. I don't expect such an idea to get a lot of traction. It is random thinking off the cuff on my part.

The thing I do want to address for the last musing here is border security. It is the crossroads that any other program, amnesty, status, deportation or enforcement will depart from.

Put simply: The southern border must be closed. To do this will require money (not much compared to the two trillion dollars this amnesty bill will cost) but it will requires lots of will.

Strangely, my solution doesn't involve multi-year fence and wall construction, high tech security cameras and drones and programs that spread over several Presidential elections and the fickle winds of political change. A year or two worth of will is all it will need. My prediction is if the President and/or Congress did what I am about to propose, I predict the majority party supporting it will win the White House in 2008 hands-down.

The Plan

For background, the US-Mexico border is 3,141 kilometers long (forgive me, metric makes this easier). That 1,951 miles for us here in the USA. This is what we need to seal. The terrain the border goes through is mostly scrub desert and mountainous regions.

All we need to seal the border is to actually carry through on the promised deployment of National Guard troops.

First, for legal purposes, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the armed forces (which include the Guard since they are Federal troops) from acting in a law enforcement capacity except when authorized to do so by Congress or as deemed necessary under the Constitution by the President. In other words, if Congress says it is ok for the Guard to enforce the law for a limited amount of time or under specific circumstances and timelines, it is legal under Posse Comitatus. Alternately, the President may make the decision unilaterally in the face of national security concerns (which this would qualify as) as long as such usage does not violate the Constitution. Posse Comitatus does not prevent the use of armed forces in a law enforcement capacity but merely formalizes the mechanism by which they can.

So, if Congress or the President say it is ok to deploy the Guard to the border to enforce Federal immigration law, it is legal. Politically, it is much better for Congress to do so since they represent the will of the People. But since President Bush has nothing to lose and as long as he drafted the Executive Order correctly, he could accomplish the same thing.

For discussion sake, let us assume Congress or the President has said "Yes, use the Guard".

In my mind, to seal the border effectively requires overwhelming presence. To do this, I propose we deploy four man teams, each equipped with a Humvee, two video cameras (one dash-mounted, the other handheld), a radio and optics on 1000 meter intervals.

The reason for the 1000 meter interval is simple coverage. Unless you are in extremely dense terrain, with binoculars or other such optic seeing 1000 meters across open country is easy. With 1000 meter spacing, that effectively places three teams covering a 2 kilometer section of the border with each team providing overlapping coverage to its neighbors. Any two teams are covering 1 kilometer fully. That is eight pairs of eyes looking over that terrain.

If illegals cross the border in the day with this type of spacing and regular scanning, they better be damn good at hiding because any movement is going to be rapidly picked off. Since daytime in the desert is very hot and the illegals tend to lay low, they are going to travel at night when it is cooler and under the cover of darkness.

Each team will be equipped with a set of good infrared night vision or thermal optics. Since the desert can reach near-freezing temperatures at night, spotting a hot human form against such a cold backdrop at that short range by a team in place will be very straightforward. Certainly not perfect but at that level of troop density, not a lot of illegals are going to get through, day or night.

To do this properly will require 24 hour coverage. Obviously, we can't place four man teams on 24 hour duty. Like any job, 8 hours is acceptable. Each team would stand two 4 hour watches and these would rotate so each team was doing a equal number of night, midday and evening watches. Furthermore, the relieving of a team will be done on a shifting schedule to ensure that there is not a predictable pattern to when new teams take over from existing ones.

This also addresses an issue that plagues the Border Patrol today: they follow predictable schedules and leave the border uncovered at known, fixed times (which the coyotes exploit by making daytime runs). By using the Guard and following military protocol, a team could not leave their post until properly relieved by an incoming team. This means there will be no gaps in coverage during a switchover and for a time will provide reinforcements at areas being relieved.

In addition to the border watch, one 4 hour watch will be a standby watch with teams further back ready to assist on a moment's notice. Think of them as "alert" troops. On a given day, a trooper will serve 8 hours on border watch, 4 hours on "alert" duty and the remaining 12 hours is for relaxation, sleeping, eating, other duty tasks and maintenance of gear.

If the teams detect the presence of illegals, they will co-ordinate with their neighbor teams and move in to intercept the invaders. Their job is to stop and detain. If the illegals flee, they are authorized to pursue up to the limits of the Mexican border (if they head back south) or north without limit while calling in reinforcements to assist. That is where the "alert" teams come into play.

While the border team is pursuing the illegals, the "alert" teams are moving in to assist and intercept. The purpose of the alert teams is to ensure that no more than a single border team is removed from their post while in pursuit. That allows the two remaining teams to continue to provide adequate coverage while there is a gap. In the end, the purpose of the two groups is to provide a "defense in depth". I'm not a military deployment planner and I am sure this can be improved upon but that is the basic concept.

If all goes well, the illegals are intercepted and the team who gets them detains them. They will, of course, know enough Spanish to issue orders and I think the presence of anywhere from 4-12 soldiers, all visibly armed and evil looking, will have a sufficient cowing effect on our captured criminals. Should an illegal try to run, the troops are permitted to fire warning shots over their heads while working to run them down and call in even more help. The assumption is, once intercepted, the illegals will give up while scary armed men round them up and put them in zip cuffs.

Once secured, the Guard troops will call the Border Patrol using their radios. The Border Patrol will provide units to serve alongside the Guard specifically for this purpose. Once the Patrol arrives, the Guard will turn over the illegals. The Border Patrol will then take them to a Guard managed holding area (an illegal refugee camp).

The illegals will be photographed, questioned, any documents on them checked, seized or examined. Their personal IDs (if any) and personal property will be returned to them. Once they are processed into the camp, which will be behind razor wire and guarded by men with guns and dogs, they will be held until there are enough of them to fill a truck or bus. They will then be loaded into the bus and driven under guard in the company of a Border Patrol agent where there will be taken to the border and released back into Mexico. At worst, a group of illegals should be held in their "camp" for no more than a couple days.

The Guardsmen will only be authorized to use lethal force if they are fired upon first. If that happens, they are allowed to return fire and to treat the situation as an attack by enemy forces. Since I expect such an attack to be the work of drug dealers, more than sufficient evidence will be available in the aftermath in the form of dead dealers, weapons and drugs to quell any outcry.

That is also where the video cameras come into play. The dashcam should capture the results of any pursuit in the Humvee and the handheld camera (handled by one member of the team) will provide evidence for the proper detainment of the illegals and handover to the Border Patrol. That will help to cut down on questions about the use of force and provide some oversight because of the use of armed soldiers (which makes some people nervous).

In the event the team is fired upon, the cameras will be able to provide evidence of such and also serve to keep the troops themselves in line. Should those shooting at the troops turn out to be Mexican soldiers on a probing mission, the footage from video cameras will prove especially useful in the diplomatic row that will follow.

In addition to the troops and their equipment, several other items will be used to help increase the border security. We need boots on the ground to intercept illegals and detain them. We can also use additional technology to help us.

A few drones equipped with infrared and visible light cameras can be used as additional surveillance aids. They can be unarmed Air Force Predators or Border Patrol drones, it doesn't matter. These will be used if desired to help identify and co-ordinate ground intercepts of illegals. These will always be used in addition to the troops. The drones are not intended to replace troops on the ground but to act as a force multiplier.

Finally, the first line of alert and defense for the border will be mines.

Before you go crazy, I'm not talking about regular land mines (no matter how tempting it might be). We aren't some nutjob African dictatorial republic, after all. This is my special contribution to border security.

The mine will be a trip mine. It can be pressure activited, by tripwire or activated by remote sensor. It will consist of a tube that will launch a standard flashbang grenade a few feet away (away from the person stepping on it, for example). Essentially, a capped aluminum tube set at an angle buried underground that will kick the grenade out and away. With proper timing, the flashbang should land 4-5 feet away and go off just before or as it hits the ground.

For those of you who don't know, flashbangs are concussion devices. They emit a powerful flash of light (enough to temporarily blind someone in dark or interior conditions) and a powerful shock that deafens and stuns and can knock down those within its effective radius. They are non-lethal. They are used today as entry devices for SWAT teams in making high risk entries and by the military in urban warfare when they don't want to kill folks inside a room they are breaching.

The net effect of a flashbang is to temporarily incapacitate anyone within about 30 feet in open air. It shocks, blinds and stuns. Anyone nearby when it goes off will rolling on the ground moaning or be rendered unconcious. At worst, a person close to the grenade will suffer ruptured eardrums (less likely in an outdoor scenario versus a closed room where 'bangs tend to be used).

These beasties are loud. Liberally sprinkle these mines just inside the border. When a group of illegals sets one or more off, the noise and perhaps the flash (especially at night), will carry easily to the nearby troops who can then move in and safely detain those illegals caught unaware. The mines will serve as an ideal first-line of detection, early warning of trouble and slowing of illegal progress into the country. As a bonus, the simple mine can be easily reloaded and reburied with a new flashbang in minutes. As one continuous minefield from Texas to California, these mines will serve as a deterrent to illegal crossing. At a minimum, it will slow the illegals down (especially if their coyote is trying to use a metal detector to find the mines one step at a time).

And for that special psyops touch, have folks spread rumors in the border towns once the potential illegals become aware of these mines (as they will) that there are real land mines mixed in among them and that entire groups have been killed or disappeared as a result of this. With a little bit of homegrown fear-mongering, the illegals themselves will believe it especially given all of the other military factors at work as well as their own cultural biases. The best illegal immigrant is one who never actually tries to cross the border and decides becoming illegal isn't worth dying for. The effect of such operations will never be truly measurable but you can't tell me some folks won't believe it. Plus, there are ways which I won't mention here to make it believable with a little bit of propaganda (which I am not above using).

Since this has become a massive post, I will save Part 2 for tomorrow which will cover the logistics of this plan and how to make it happen. It will give you some weekend reading and thinking since I will be away.

More to come. Stay tuned.

First Shots Fired in the Illegal Immigration Disaster

Well, the vote to proceed to end the debate on whether to hear the sellout illegal immigration (read: amnesty) bill has taken place with 69 "Yeas", 23 "Nays" and 8 abstaining (all of the Presidential hopefuls, it might be noted).

So now the bill proceeds for debate, discussion, amendment and possible passage.

For the record for those of you in Maryland, both Senators supported it.

So, here is what I just sent Traitor Barbara Mikulski. It will go nice with the brick she will receive from me later in the week:

Dear Senator Mikulski,

This is to notify you as one of your constituents that as a result of your voting "Yea" in support of proceeding with the comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate today, you have just lost my vote when you run for re-election.

The only way you can salvage any of my support or other Marylanders such as myself who believe in a nation founded on the rule of law is to vote "Nay" on the final version of this bill to ensure it does not leave the Senate.

Your conduct in supporting this bill is utterly shameful and not upholding your oath to the Constitution of the United States. It sells out law-abiding citizens and legal immigrants in favor of vote pandering and party demographics.

I hope you're proud of yourself. You've betrayed the ideals the United States has been founded upon.

Note that I am not using the "Honorable" honorific. She isn't deserving of it since Senator Mikulski has shown herself more willing to sell out the United States than listen to the will of her constituents. I, for one, will be making sure I work to see her run out of office.

Time to Start Mailing Bricks

I'm glad I had gone to the range last night because had I not, I would shot the radio out of my car tonight.

I just heard that President Bush and key Senate leaders have hashed out a compromise that will eventually grant what they say is 12 million (and probably closer to 20 million) illegal aliens US citizenship. It would take 13 years, require them to pay fines among other things but in essence this will reward those who have broken the law the legal right to live here. But they aren't calling it amnesty.

Bush and the Senate have just sold this country out. The message this sends to America is the rule of law doesn't matter if enough people claim hardship, they just want a fair life or any other such thing. I figure drug dealers ought to start gathering on the Mall too and begin demanding their right to be licensed as pharmacists rather than the undocumented narcotics dispensers they are now.

It has taken me 10 years to get to this point and it will take me 2 1/2 more years before I finally earn my US citizenship. In the end, it will have cost me somewhere north of $16,000 when all of the costs and hardships I've suffered at the hands of the INS over the years are factored in. Essentially, I will have paid and waited for the same 13 years that will only cost these fucking illegals $5000 maximum and they won't have paid taxes or done anything to earn it except be here.

So how does it feel America? You wanted change. You wanted the government to take care of you, make you safe, promise you a good job and so on. And they've done it by bribing you with your own money. And decided that perhaps granting a seventh amnesty to illegal aliens will solve the problem. What's 20 million new citizens? That's ok, the eighth amnesty will only cover 40 million or so. It will simply be the bulk of the population of Mexico then. What the hell, might as well. Well, this is what your change and apathy has bought you.

It's not like our sovereignty, our rule of law, our culture, our values or our Rights as law-abiding citizens matter. Especially to them. There's going to be a lot of criminal rejoicing tomorrow.

I feel utterly betrayed.

But it is just starting. Just because they have a bill doesn't mean it is going to pass. They are predicting a tough fight over this. That's an understatement. This has to die on the vine. Now.

Mr. and Mrs. Law Abiding Citizen, now is the time to call your Senator and Congressmen and tell them in no uncertain terms that you will not support them voting for this bill or any other that lands in front of them that rewards illegal entry into this country with eventual citizenship.

Personally, I'm mailing bricks to my representatives starting with Senator Barbara Mikulski. Every Maryland representative is going to get one from me. Since they seem to be reluctant to build a wall on the border and get the message that enforcement and rule of law is what we want, I am going to help them along. The first "Send a Brick" campaign certainly sent a message. It is time to continue that message. If a few thousand bricks land on the desks of all our elected Representatives, maybe they'll get the hint.

Otherwise, I demand my US citizenship immediately. I've earned it. They haven't. This isn't fair, it isn't right, it makes a mockery of the law of this land and rewards crime. I can't believe that any majority of US citizens thinks eventual amnesty is a good thing.

If you think granting any form of amnesty to illegal aliens is right, I want to hear from you. I want to understand why you feel this way.

They are illegal aliens. They broke the law by not entering this country legally at a border crossing. They engage in identity theft with fake or stolen Social Security Numbers to gain employment. They use forged documents. They use your tax money in the form of getting free medical care from local hospitals. They don't pay taxes. Their children get free education in your schools and in-state tuition in colleges. These are the people who are going to be rewarded for no other reason than they happen to be here by breaking the law.

They are not fucking "undocumented workers". They are not simply "immigrants". I am a legal immigrant. I obeyed the law and this is my reward. If you're a legal immigrant and you're sponsoring family member overseas and they've been waiting months or years to get here, welcome to the USA. Criminals have more influence than us law-abiding future citizens.

Starting contacting your Representatives now, folks. And for my Maryland Representatives I make the following promise: If you support this bill or anything like it, you will not receive my vote as my first act as a US citizen in the 2010 mid-term elections. Not then or ever. I will make it my mission to see you run out of office and make sure you know why.

Justice no longer exists in this country. It had a good run.

Rest in Peace, Rule of Law. 1776-2007.

UPDATE: I'm not the only one who sees this as a sellout of America. See Michelle Malkin's blog for a summary.

The Use of Force

Sebastian over at Snowflakes in Hell posted this article as to why he keeps a gun in the house. Short version, someone breaks into a home, teenage daughter is told to go get help and in the five minutes it takes for her to do so abd for the police to arrive, her parents and her brother are murdered.

I, likewise, keep a gun in the house for similar reasons.

This couple did what the left-leaning, "guns are bad" crowd want you to do: call 911 and let the police handle it. The police response in this case was excellent but it was also too late.

As they say, call 911 and die.

For anyone who thinks guns are evil, let me tell you what will happen if someone breaks into my house in the dead of night and I wake up and see them coming towards me or my own.

I am going to kill them. With vigor.

I am not kidding. I am not going to shout a warning beyond "Freeze!" with the gun already levelled at them. I am not going to aim to wound. If I don't get immediate compliance, I am already going to have the sight glowing on the center of the black shadow and I am going to pull the trigger.

And I will not stop until I have to change magazines or the shadow is on the floor and no longer moving towards me. And if the first 7-8 rounds still has them coming towards me, I'm taking my chances on a miss and I am shifting my aim upwards from chest to head. Then their chances of surviving multiple gunshot wounds are going to fall rapidly to zero.

Break into my house with malice in your heart and you are going to die. It is not a threat. It is a promise.

I am not interested in understanding what drove this criminal to break into my house. I don't care about your tough childhood and your crack habit. Or the fact that you liked by car in the driveway and figured my house was an easy mark. If you smash my door in or break a window, you've essentially announced your morals and intentions to me and you just gambled in a game that I guarantee you are going to lose.

Because the criminal will have two options: convince me not to kill them by displaying a rapidly shrinking backside to me indicating that they are in fact retreating or die where they stand. That's it. There is no third option.

I have never understood this mentality of compliance or hoping the police will come to save you. In an ideal world, this is what happens and sometimes it does. That's great. But when it doesn't, things like what this article describe happens to good people.

People are shocked when I tell them stuff like this. "How can you contemplate killing someone?" they ask.

I respond by stating I hope I never have to. But I have done the contemplation beforehand and lost sleep over it so if I ever have to act, contemplation won't be one of the things I'll be dealing with at that moment.

This is a foreign concept to a lot of people and at its heart, represents one of the few great conversions I have gone through from a personal views perspective.

A few years ago I was not unlike a typical liberal. I'm pretty open minded on stuff and I grew up in a country where strict gun control exists and the idea of using force to defend oneself was discouraged (to the point that if you do, you can be charged). The USA is wildly different on this idea depending on where you live but for the most part, a lot of Americans agree with the basic premise that you should be allowed to legally defend yourself in your own home with force up to and including lethal force if need be.

The ideal of "Your home is your castle" is very much alive in this country. Violate that heartfelt doctrine and your life is potentially forfeit. In essence, violating your home is a form of rape. The sanctity of your private being has been violated and to most people, you have the right to defend it.

It took me years to come around to that ideal. At first it was gradual but once I began to understand gun ownership and politics, the conversion proceeded very quickly to a very opposite position to where I started from. As I tell people, the idea that I will kill to defend myself and those around me is one of the few political conversions I have gone through.

And it is political. It is political because there are people who feel you as an individual person shouldn't be allowed to have that type of power. Because if you as a person have the option to defend yourself with lethal force, you are taking away power from them. The power to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own person and property. The power to make you dependent on them and the services they provide in the form of the police.

The exercise of the right of self-defense is the ultimate expression of personal power. Power is everything in politics. If you aren't dependent on others, you have power. The power of defense. The power of self-reliance. The power to make a choice.

I think deep down this is what left-leaning liberals fear. By exercising personal power in self-defense, you are announcing that you will not be beholden to others to make choices for you. Bear in mind, you have the choice, like the couple in this article, to not keep a gun in the house. You can decide to leave your fate in the hands of others and in the benign motives of a home invader. Sometimes, you might even be vindicated by that choice and you will be saved and able to live out the trauma of that experience.

But sometimes not.

It ultimately boils down to if you are willing to gamble with your life and the lives of those you love that someone else will come to save you when the unthinkable happens. Many people carry this concept as a truism and are unshakable in their belief that good will prevail over evil when it invades their home.

Some of us do not. I am one of them.

Let me repeat, break into my home in the dead of night and I will kill you. Without hestitation. The only variable is the means by which I will send you to Judgement. If two pistol mags with .45ACP HydraShoks don't put you down, I'm going for the nearby AR-15 and then I am going to make the coroner's report interesting reading. Because then I am going to be putting a lot of holes into your corpse. If you survive that and manage to kill me and my own, it sure as hell won't be for a lack of trying on my part to stop you. Otherwise, your family is getting a closed casket.

Because I will not let what happen to this couple happen to me and those I care about!

I'd rather be alive and dealing with the financial and legal troubles that follow than dead and pure for not having a gun and using it when it counted. I hope I never do but I am prepared to do so.

Ask yourself which you prefer.

Man Shoots Himself Without a Gun

From CNN, come this little story.

Long story short, this guy put .223 caliber rounds into a vise and whacked them with a hammer to empty the brass case. Apparently, he was trying to empty them of the bullets and powder that were still part of them! Managed to shoot himself in the abdomen. Which means our genius was facing the bullet and reaching over with the hammer to beat on the primer.

And they didn't charge this guy with negligent discharge. Damn, I guess you need a gun to meet that requirement.

The sad part is this guy didn't earn himself a Darwin Award for this high attempt at self-cleansing of the gene pool.

If he is so hard up for $1.70 a pound for brass, I've got a few pounds of bullet-free brass cases in my closet he's welcome to. Seriously.

Still, our friend deserves an honorable mention in the annals of Darwin Award winners. I thought most people could figure out the basic logic of striking live rounds with a hammer to be a bad idea. The fact he got through 100 rounds before getting shot stuns me.

Geeking Out

Thanks to Sebastian over at Snowflakes in Hell, I did actually take him up on his suggestion and took a drive up to Philadelphia to visit the USS Winston Churchill.

I have a term for this which my girlfriend heartily agress with: geeking out.

I've been doing a lot of it lately.

I mean, come on, it takes a certain type of personality to jump into the car, drive 2 1/2 hours to a city you've never been to just to see a US Navy destroyer just because it happens to be in port for a goodwill stop and is giving public tours. And do it just because it would be damn cool.

It was.

The USS Winston Churchill is an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer. One of the big reasons I took this trip was for that reason alone. For those of you who don't know, the Arleigh Burke class ships are the newest warships in the US Navy. Their mission is primarily air defense. They are the follow-ons and companions to the larger Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser. Both ships use the same radar systems and fire the same missiles.

The Arleigh Burke class are also fitted for anti-submarine warfare and an anti-shipping role although this role is diminished in Winston Churchill (as we found out on the tour). The ship carries two SH-60 Seahawk helicopters for this mission. The Churchill is a Flight III version of the ship and because of the helicopters, she lacks Harpoon anti-shipping missiles. Her only anti-shipping capability is her five inch mount.

The tour was lead by a Navy enlisted woman who was very pleasant and answered all our questions. Since the Churchill is an active-duty warship, I wasn't expected to get to see much and I was not disappointed. They limited the tour to the upper deck only.

We got to move along the side under cover to get fore and aft. They toured the bow of the ship first where we got to drool over the 5 inch/45 mount, the forward vertical launch system (VLS) with 32 missiles and the Phalanx CIWS (Close-In Weapon System). I wonder how many people on the tour noticed that the CIWS system had live rounds in the feed belt?

Once we finished on the bow, we went along the starboard side and go to see the chaff and smoke launchers, the davit for the RIBs (Rigid Inflatable Boats) and an account of how the Churchill was the first US Navy vessel in over 200 years to actually capture pirates on the high seas.

The only indoor portion of the tour happened next and they led us down a ladder into the starboard side helicopter hanger. No helos were aboard (otherwise we wouldn't have been able to fit in the hanger). Then we went outside onto the fantail and the tour concluded. Total time: about 20 minutes or so.

If you paid attention, you noticed the high level of security around the ship. I spotted at least three different Marines patrolling the ship. All had loaded M16 rifles. The .50 caliber machine guns fore and aft were lacking ammo boxes so I guess they were for show.

The more obvious security was the presence of Churchill's RIBs in the river with two crew aboard (one armed) and the Philadelphia Police river patrol. On two occasions, the Navy RIB scooted away to shoo off a jet skier who was getting too close as well as a small powerboat. People in line waiting for the tour kept wondering what they were doing until a fellow behind us said aloud, "Do you remember what happened to the USS Cole?". I knew why they were doing it since like him, I knew the story behind the Cole (which is also an Arleigh Burke class destroyer). Still, some people just don't get it.

It is really cool to see the tight professionalism of the Navy crew. More than once, I wished I could swap positions with any one of them. I found myself wondering what the Churchill was like at sea. Pier-side, she looks huge. After all, she's nearly the size of a WW2 heavy cruiser. All-steel construction (another lesson the Navy has applied to their new ships), nearly 9000 tons displacement, very solid and imposing.

At sea, that 9000 odd tons can get thrown around like a bathtub toy and she'll seem very small indeed.

Over all, a very fun experience. On the geek out scale, I can only rate it a 7 out of 10.

The reason for that was lying across the river in the form of USS New Jersey, one of the Iowa class battleships. She is open for public tours since she is fully decommissioned as a museum ship. I wanted to hop the water ferry and head on over. I begged. I was desperate. But I didn't have time. Had I got to do both ships back-to-back, I would have gone into geek overload.

I'm saving that for a follow-up trip. 2 1/2 hours in the car isn't that bad for the reward on the other end.

And as a bonus, I was straining to see the 'Ghost Fleet' tied up at the old Philadelphia Navy Yard. You can see the ships from I-95. I managed to count a few Spruance-class destroyers (which the Arleigh Burke-class replaced), an Olver Hazard Perry-class frigate and what looked like a pair of Charles F. Adams-class destroyers. Plus a bunch of support and amphibious assault ships. I know there's a carrier down there too. I wonder if a future trip up will allow me to get off the highway, stop and get close enough to take some pictures. Boneyards are interesting subjects.

All in all, a fun day. Left at 12:30pm, got home around 7pm (we stopped to play the slots in Dover).

I'll update this post with pictures later tonight.

Churches Harboring Illegal Immigrants

Ok, folks, this one is going to be a rant.

My friend Tom sent me the following yesterday afternoon from Yahoo News.

Churches to provide immigration sanctuary

The title alone should tell you where this is going to go. Let us begin...

Churches in five big U.S. cities plan to protect illegal immigrants from deportation, offering their buildings as sanctuary if need be, as they pressure lawmakers to create a path to citizenship for the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

Hey ICE (that's Immigration and Customs Enforcement for those of you who don't know), you have the locations of people who have publically announced that they are going to aid and abet criminals by harboring them from the law!

And since when do churches get to set public policy? Part of the deal we struck in this country as part of our "separation of church and state" concept is that we let churches not pay a lot of taxes in order to keep religion free and open. As a result, churches and organized religion are supposed to stay out of politics.

Ok, churches, if you want to play with the big boys and act as lobbyists, I want to see you pay back property and income taxes on all your holdings now. I'm serious. You are getting a free ride right now and I think that needs to stop if you want to get into the game of lobbying for public policy changes.

Beginning Wednesday, a Catholic church in Los Angeles and a Lutheran church in North Hollywood each intend to shelter one person, and churches in other cities plan to do so in coming months as part of the "New Sanctuary Movement."

"We want to put a human face to very complex immigration laws and awaken the consciousness of the human spirit," said Father Richard Estrada of Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church in Los Angeles, where one illegal immigrant will live.

Doesn't the law call this type of behavior a criminal conspiracy? We have a group of people organizing to knowingly commit a crime. Go arrest them.

Oh, we also have the name of the first priest who's going to get charged as a felon for harboring a fugitive in defiance of immigration law. I hope those silver handcuffs will go nicely with Father Estrada's robes and symbols of faith.

Father Estrada can put a human face on the complex troubles of his fellow convicts after he is convicted of a felony and spends a couple years in prison. His desire to do good will have ample outlet there.

Organizers don't believe immigration agents will make arrests inside the churches.

Then be very thankful that I'm not in charge of an ICE unit. Because I would make the Elian Gonzales affair look like a play date. I'd have the agents dragging the illegal and every single person who acted in complicity to shelter them in defiance of Federal law into the street to make sure the public and the news media saw them being handcuffed and shoved into the back of a police car.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has not tried to arrest Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant who has taken shelter at a Methodist church in Chicago since August. Her son is a U.S. citizen and he has lobbied in the Mexican legislature on behalf of families that would be split if parents are deported.

ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice declined to say if agents would attempt to arrest others who take sanctuary in churches, although she noted agents had the authority to arrest anyone violating immigration law.

Let's see, you have a location and better yet, a name of a known criminal. And a criminal who knows she's breaking the laws of this country. And what is she doing? Lobbying the Mexican legislature to help in violating US immigration law! And it is being done by a US citizen. Wonderful, colloborating with a foreign government to violate the laws of the USA. Aren't there laws against that?

If Ms. Kice decides to not send agents into the church, it is a nice gesture but it would also be wrong. Religious people are free to commit themselves to a higher power but they still have to respect authorities down here too. ICE should walk politely into the church with a search warrant in hand and arrest Ms. Arellano. Sorry, padre, it is the law of the land and those laws don't end at your doorstep despite your personal beliefs.

Anti-illegal-immigration groups called the sanctuary effort misguided.

The faith groups "don't seem to realize that they are being charitable with someone else's resources, and that's not charity," said Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors limits on immigration.

Yes, they're being charitable all right. Charitable with deciding which laws they consider important and which ones they consider worthy of ignoring.

For once, I am actually glad the news report got the phraseology correct. "Anti-illegal immigration" groups, not "Anti-immigration" groups. Most people agree immigration is a good thing and encourage people to come here legally.

The only people who are encouraging illegal immigration are those who seem to think that laws can be selectively ignored. If that is the case, then I want to ignore the laws on machine gun ownership. I think they're wrong and I want to harbor some illegal machine guns in my home to highlight the plight of people who simple want to own such guns without being unfairly molested by the Government. How far do you think I'd get with such an argument?

Probably all the way into a Federal jail cell. The same line of reasoning is equally bogus as applied to illegal immigrants.

Participating churches in San Diego, Seattle, Chicago and New York won't initially house illegal immigrants. Instead, leaders will provide legal counsel, accompany them to court hearings and prepare plans to house them in churches if authorities try to deport them.

I'm ok with a church or group helping someone even if they are a criminal. If you want to spend your time and money in a futile defense of a criminal act, feel free to do so. People do it all the time. I think it is a noble action.

But I stop my support at housing criminals in defiance of legal orders. If a person is ordered deported and they actually let them out to get their affairs in order, you do not get to decide that your feelings or views override a court of law. If you feel illegal immigration is wrong, fine. Work to get the law changed (and expect me to fight you tooth and nail all the way). But until you do, taking in an illegal alien and keeping them past their deportation date is a federal crime and you should be charged for doing so.

The plans come as immigration reform legislation has been stalled since last summer, and tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have been detained and deported in stepped-up immigration raids in recent months.

How many tens of thousands? 10,000? 50,000? Even 100,000 arrests and deportation would not even be one percent of all the illegal aliens estimated to be here.

I don't call that "stepped up raid". I call that a very weak start. When I start seeing convoys to the US-Mexican border and 100,000 illegals are being deported in a month, then I'll start believing we're actually enforcing the law and doing something about the problem.

Sadly, even with this level of enforcement, the odds are still in favor of the illegals not getting caught. And when they do, tough. They just lost in a lottery where the odds are heavily in their favor. I'll take 10,000 criminals deported over none. Just keep doing it.

Jani, a U.S. citizen who did not give her last name, said her Haitian-born husband, Jean, is facing deportation because of a 1989 drug conviction in the U.S. that put him in prison for 11 years. She said the family would take refuge in a church, if necessary, rather than be separated

Jani has another option that she doesn't seem to want to consider because, gasp, it would be inconvenient to her: follow her illegal husband back to Haiti!

Let's see, 1989 felony drug conviction, 11 years in prison, that would have put him out of jail in 2000. I'm also quite certain that he wasn't let out of the front door of the prison as a convicted drug dealer and illegal alien and set free in the USA. His ass would have been on a plane to Haiti. Which means either our dear Jani here met him on vacation in Haiti and fell positively head-over-heels for him there and married him not knowing his past or he came back here illegally and married her here. I'm betting on the latter.

It doesn't matter. The marriage might be legal and he might be reformed but since he is a convicted felon and he entered the USA illegal as such, short of an executive order by the President, there is no fucking way he will be allowed to stay here as a permanent resident under the law by marriage. None.

The USCIS has discretion to grant or deny petitions for past criminal conduct but that isn't one of them. Felony drug convicition and illegal entry means you don't get to come into this country even as a guest for at least 10 years. If you're lucky. Generally, this type of thing guarantees you'll be persona non grata in the USA for the rest of your life.

You see, we have standards in this country about who we let in to become residents and ultimately citizens. Not just anyone gets in. You have to show throughout your life that you're a fine, upstanding person worthy of earning the rights as a resident and a citizen. If you spend 11 years in prison for a drug conviction, you probably weren't caught with a dime bag of weed. More like a few kilos of some white powder in a speedboat off the coast of Miami.

And if Jani joins her husband and ICE comes for him, they're going to be separated regardless. He will be sitting in jail awaiting a hearing in front of an immigration court and she'll be in front of a Federal judge answering to numerous charges of violating US immigration law. If they have kids (which it sounds like they do), they'll be placed in the custody of the State.

Does this sounds like the actions of a responsible parent to you?

The churches sought immigrants who wanted to take part in the sanctuary movement and were screened to make sure they paid taxes and didn't have criminal backgrounds, Salvatierra said. They chose the Haitan man because "his crime was 20 years ago and since then he has totally reformed his life," she said.

Obviously the churces can't even follow their own guidelines. The man has a criminal background. As to whether he paid taxes, maybe while he was in jail. Who knows once he got out. The wife probably. Him, not bloody likely.

Guess what, Rev. Alexia Salvatierra, you don't get to make the judgement of whether he's reformed or not. Only God knows that. Here, on this plane of existence, our justice system makes that determination. And you have a duty under your own religious teachings to accept authority here on Earth.

Otherwise, you're playing God.

Feinstein Is At It Again: New Bill to Make .50 BMG NFA

Just in courtesy of Guntards, Diane Feinstein has introduced a bill that would make any .50BMG caliber rifle a "destructive device" under NFA'34 rules and subject it to the strict checks required presently for private ownership of explosives like grenades, mortar rounds, dynamite, etc.

But it's not a "ban". It is just tighter regulation.

Right.

The text of the bill isn't available yet under the name of "Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007". When it is, I'll comment more.

But they did post this little tidbit:

Require the same registration for any “copycat” sniper rifles that might be developed in the future with destructive power that is equivalent to the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle; and

Such weapons already exist, folks. Hell, you can achieve some of the .50BMG's anti-material capabilities with .308 armor piercing rounds. You just need to be a little closer than the .50 to do it.

This is a very dangerous clause and I'll need to see if the bill clarifies it further. But for now, you can consider ownership of not only the .50BMG but the .338 Lapua, .408 CheyTac and .416 Barrett as falling under this. After all, the stated purpose of the .416 was specifically to achieve the .50BMG's hitting power and ballistics but in a smaller package (partially to get under the .50 caliber ban in California.).

If you can define the .50 as a "dangerous caliber", the .30 calibers aren't far behind.

And if this has any chance of passing, I'll borrow money to order a .50BMG rifle so I can get it grandfathered in just to piss off Feinstein. I want to be a non-citizen grandfathered in with a NFA weapon.

And finally and not surprising, Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland is a co-sponsor of this. Her office will be hearing from me.

Pass the word, folks. High powered "sniper" rifles are officially evil and must be controlled!

Response to West, By God's Response

I've added West, By God to my list of favorite bloggers. They are regular visitors and do regularly point out my activity when they feel it is appropriate.

They've taken the time to post their response to my recent article from CNN regarding Senate Bill 1237 which would give unilateral authority to the Attorney General to create a terrorist watch list for gun purchases.

We are both in agreement on the dangers of violating due process. That is my primary concern. They specifically reply to my assertion that if someone is a known terrorist, why aren't they in custody.

Here is their response:

"...why aren't they in custody?"
Because 'suspected' terrorists are great intelligence sources. From an investigative standpoint, if we feel there may be a greater plot or conspiracy, it is better to keep a close eye on the low-level players and gather information, than to take them down immediately and lose the big guys.

With that in mind, denying the ability for a suspect to purchase a gun is a BAD idea, given this way of thinking. Scenerio: Bad guy goes to buy a gun, bad guy is denied, bad guy calls NICS and can't get a good answer as to why (or worse: they do tell him why), bad guy knows we're on to him.

Clearly there are people on the watch list that are not really terrorists, or even criminals. However, the "list" is an investigative tool, as much as it is a preventative measure. This bill will inevitably ruin the ability of law enforcement to collect intelligence on the bad guys.

I agree that potential or known terrorists make good intelligence sources. Certainly, the list can be useful in an investigative sense. But you don't need a law to compile a list of suspects. For that, Excel would be overkill. Notebook and pen work quite well for that purpose as part of an investigation.

But if we don't want to tip off the bad guys that we're on to them by denying them a gun purchase that would otherwise be legal (since only law-abiding citizens and resident aliens can buy guns), doesn't that eliminate the need for the proposed "terrorist gun purchase watch list"?

If you're already keeping tabs on the terror suspects, odds are you'll see them make or get information with regards to their gun purchases. If not arresting them before you have enough evidence is the issue, a watch list isn't needed because you'll know they have the guns anyway and you'll be watching them even more closely from then on.

My point is, you don't need legislation to create a list. Any of us can do that. Nothing stopping us from doing it now. Such legislation would hamper investigations since it would, as they say, turn an informal investigative tool into one the terror suspects can be made aware of. Such a thing is not necessary since these tools already exist. Pen and paper is all that is needed.

The purpose of the watch lists like the "No-Fly" list is make a list of official suspects worthy of further scrutiny. The "No-Fly" list is very close to a violation of the 4th Amendment. It all boils down to a question of whether you have a "right" to travel on a plane. The obvious answer is, no, you do not. Hence, the "No-Fly" list can survive, barely, against a challenge of unlawful search or seizure. Such a search is inconvenient but air travel is not Constitutionally protected. With the exception of government regulation, air travel is a private enterprise and you have the freedom to travel by alternative, less invasive means. Personally, I do.

I think West, By God and myself are in agreement when that list is used not to inconvenience but rather deny Constitutional rights by whim rather than by a judgement of a court, the equation changes. Then the existence of such a list becomes a clear Constitutional violation. Definitely a 2nd Amendment and 4th Amendment violation. Such actions cannot be permitted and to condone the idea of compiling lists of suspects in order to deny them any Rights could be the last act of a once-free society.

CNN Spin is Making Me Dizzy

You know you can expect a certain amount of spin from a left-leaning (meaning most) news outlet. I read CNN merely to get a cursory examination of what's happening in the world. It isn't like I expect much from them.

So, Monday they bring us the following headline (very briefly on the front page):

NRA opposes bill to stop gun sales to terror suspects

They must have broken the spin machine on this one.

Here is why the NRA is opposing it:

Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

Now why would the evil, cancerous NRA oppose this?!? Seems like a good bill to me.

Yes, if my name was Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.

For those of you without functioning brains, let me clue you in on a basic premise of our society here in the USA. Most of us get this concept pretty easily. It is the concept that, if accused of a crime, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of your peers.

But they aren't talking about crimes here, they're talking about terrorists!

Wrong, they are talking about terror suspects. Happily, the article does explain this:

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

Mr. Cox is absolutely 100 percent correct in his assessment. You can suspect someone all you like of being a terrorist, a mass murderer, a baby-raping leper or a plain shoplifter. But unless you have evidence that can stand in a court of law to prove that, you cannot deny someone's rights without the due process of law.

If you are left-leaning, you should be very, very frightened of ideas that this bill promotes. The idea that the governement gets to decide that your rights can be abridged arbitrarily without your knowledge solely because they suspect you might do "something".

Of course, my favorite raving idiot, Paul Helmke, gets his soundbite in on this one:

"When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg's bill.

Yes, Paul, they call it the "No-Fly" watch list today. A secret list compiled with evidence that cannot be seen if you happen to find yourself on it and with basically no way for you to get off it unless your name happens to be Kennedy with a Senator tacked in front of it. Glad to see you're perfectly ok with this concept as it applies to guns.

I'm going to get back to this in a second.

The article closes with:

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

Let me ask a stupid question here: If you know someone is a terrorist, why aren't they in custody? If you have enough evidence to demonstrate this so it will stand in a court of law, why haven't these "suspects" been arrested and been turned into "defendants"?

In general terms, who in this country other than those who wish to erode civil liberties feel this type of bill is a good thing? Some of you may argue that stopping terrorism is all the justification needed. After all, if we can stop a couple of terrorists from obtaining guns, we might be able to prevent a massacre. Certainly noble.

But the question is: At what cost?

Suspicion and "might" are not evidentiary standards. If a person is a suspected or known terrorist, there should be enough evidence available to arrest and charge them. These lists do not meet this probable cause standard of evidence. That is very disturbing because a letter from a neighbor to the FBI stating someone looks "swarthy and suspicious" might be enough to get you onto such a terrorist watch list. Some of you might agree with that.

What about lawful exercise of First Amendment rights that serves to deny you other civil rights without ever having been charged with a crime just because you might do something wrong in the future?

Sound far-fetched? Most gun rights blogs I read could fall into such a category. And I would fall into that category as well. After all, I hold strong opinions, express them openly and often in defiance of what some might consider right, I write freely about gun ownership and usage. And I have made mention about the use of force. Does that not potentially qualify me as a terrorist under the rubric of "suspicion"?

Just because someone says something or owns legal products that others may find disturbing or questionable should not serve as sufficient cause to strip me of my rights. Today's acceptable acts and speech might be tomorrow's "terrorism" suspicion bar.

All in all, which part of "due process" don't people understand?

Due process applies to everyone arrested and charged with a crime in this country. If you are US soil, you are subject to the rules and laws governing due process with very, very few exceptions. That applies equally to citizens, legal residents, visitors and illegal aliens. All of these groups get to enjoy the Constitutional protection of "due process".

Due process is one of the cornerstones of our society that separate us from a dictatorship.

By allowing the Attorney General to have discretion to deny the civil rights to someone who would otherwise legally have them without having been tried and convicted in a court of law, we turn this country into dictatorship in action if not in title. Such semantics would be meaningless since the end result would be the same. That should frighten you. It frightens me.

Some may cry "But we can't let terrorists get guns!". If a terrorist is intent on their reign of terror with a gun and has suficient backing from al-Qaeda, do you not think a certain tall skinny Arab can provide his US Jihadi cells with a few illegal AK-47 machineguns? And if a citizen is set on such a reign, odds are they already own the tools needed to carry it out. Besides, a stereotypical terrorist would not be a citizen or lawful resident (unless they are establishing sleeper cells) and thus would be inelligible to buy guns anyway. The illegal black market would be the only source anyway and this bill will do nothing to stop that in any form.

After all, certain other domestic terrorists managed to engage in mass murder without the use of a single firearm. Just a credit card, a rented yellow truck, some diesel fuel and a whole bunch of fertilizer.

Guns are merely the justification engraved onto the thin end of a wedge used in the name of "security" against the current fashionable threat of terrorism to provide a means of evading the pillars of law and the Constitution because they happen to be inconvenient. If it wasn't guns, it would be something else.

But nothing, and I do mean nothing, justifies a denial of due process to an individual being stripped of their Rights under the law short of civil or domestic war. Otherwise, we are quite literally only a step away from dictatorial tyranny and all of our Rights can be wished away using similar means.

Paul Helmke and others approve of it because this one little thing advances their agenda. But I wonder how he would feel if the same concepts he supports here were applied against him in a different context. Such as against his First Amendment rights by putting him on a list of "subversive" writers and having the government apply censorship (or worse) against him without his say-so.

Or maybe search his car for drugs without a warrant. After all, with some of the stuff he writes, I wonder sometimes if certain types of fungi aren't involved in his creative process at times. After all, if suspicion is enough to deny me my rights by his estimation, my suspicion of his possible preference for mind-altering chemicals should be enough as well.

For now, we don't live in that country. I wish others would understand that there are issues at stake here larger than a few soundbites or talking points. The unintended consequences in bills like this are very frightening and I think anyone with reasoning capacity beyond their own petty prejudices, my own included, can see them.

Think about it.

And by the way, I can tell you that one person hasn't. Babara Mikulski, D-Maryland, is one of the supporters of this idea. If you live in Maryland, please contact her office and inform her in no uncertain terms how foolish her support of this idea is.

DC Circuit Denies Enbanc Hearing in Parker vs. DC

Just in, folks, the DC Circuit court has denied the District's request to have Parker vs. DC reheard enbanc. This means Parker stands and the District must now appeal to the Supreme Court.

Text of the ruling follows:

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 04-7041 September Term, 2006
03cv00213
Filed On: May 8, 2007 [1039073]

Shelly Parker, et al.,
Appellants
v.
District of Columbia and Adrian Fenty, Mayor of the
District of Columbia,
Appellees

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph,*
Rogers,* Tatel,* Garland,* Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh,
Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto were
circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing and appellees’ Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied.
Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk

* Circuit Judges Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, and Garland would grant the petition for
rehearing en banc.

Expect a lot of talk on Parker over the next few days. Now it gets interesting.

Rugged Mac Laptop

I was heading out to run an errand and needed to take my computer with me. So I headed out to my Jeep with the case in hand. During the process, I needed to organize some stuff from the front seat to the back (meaning I was throwing stuff over the seat).

Once I got everything organized, I packed into the truck, started up and headed off down the street. Picked up a little speed, everything's good as a swing slightly around the first turn.

And outside, I hear a "smack!".

In the rear view mirror, I see a black object roll into the curb. It was my laptop bag.

A short stream of profanity erupts from my mouth as I stop, turn around, pull over and get out.

I pick up the case. Looks ok. A bit of fraying on one corner but otherwise intact. So I head back to the truck to open the case and look at the remains of my laptop.

I have an old Apple iBook G3 Dual USB at 500Mhz. The machine is maxed out (640MB, 30GB, Airport wireless) and is a really nice little machine. It was my replacement for a dead P4 2.6Ghz PC laptop. I prefer it over a machine that is ten times faster for many reasons (and I'm not an Apple person by background).

I opened the case expected to find a cracked and shattered iBook. Apple laptops are not known for their ruggedness.

It was intact. But I figured it was still wrecked as I pulled it free and gave it a shake.

No weird rattles and only a crack in the case. I opened it up, screen was intact and then figuring it was the end, hit the power switch.

She chimed on and a few second later, the screen popped to life without any damage.

I consider this a small miracle given the machine and case were thrown from my truck roof at 40 miles an hour.

So, a testament to having a quality case. The case is padded thickly on all sides and the laptop is strapped inside. I am certain this is the reason the machine survived.

At least now I know to check the roof of the truck before I leave!

Rough Week

Sorry that I haven't updated anything in the past few days. It's been a rough week work-wise.

But here's a couple of trivia items for you...

Some folks on the far Left cry that the War in Iraq is all about oil. The USA ultimately wants to take over the Middle Eastern oil fields since most of oil comes from there and we need a steady supply to fuel our decadent and immoral society, right? You know, the whole "No Blood for Oil" slogan. You may even agree with this concept.

Well, I did a little off-the-cuff research last night and confirmed what I had read elsewhere at some time in the foggy haze of my memory. You want to know what I found?

The USA's number one supplier of foreign oil is Canada.

Number two is Mexico. Together, these two countries provide almost three times as much oil as what comes from Saudi Arabia (who is number three). Four and five are Venezuela and Nigeria respectively.

It goes rapidly downhill in terms of production from there and Iraq is #8.

The Middle East provides a good chunk but the bulk of oil comes from our hemisphere!

Next time you hear about the War in Iraq being about oil, toss this info in their face. The look will be worth it.

And on a "Hmmmm.." moment, from Alphecca comes this piece about Les Baer moving out of Illinois to Iowa. My friend Kevin (my enabler at Guns and Ammo Warehouse in Manassas, VA) just left here to take a job with them and he mentioned this to me in passing. I'm starting to wonder if he knew about it before anyone else because of his new job. Regardless, good luck to him and Les Baer.

I think the anti-gun folks in Iowa will lose and Les Baer will settle there and be prosperous for the community. I'd love it if ArmaLite would follow them to the same place and turn Le Claire, IA into one of the USA's gun making capitals. I dare say the city managers would be welcoming ArmaLite with open arms and tell the anti-gunners to go jump in the Mississippi River.

Should back on track soon. Thanks for the patience.