Wasn't it just a few years ago that the peevish leftists and liberals and perpetual victims of society were whining that they were disenfranchised from voting or having their votes count because of the Supreme Court or because of having to show ID or because of how complicated a punch card is? They said that every single vote should be counted and re-counted so that the intention of every voter was known?

And yet, with typical hypocrisy they now want to "disenfranchise" those voters who support presidential candidate Ralph Nader! From the AP:

Fifteen progressive and liberal activists, including leaders of Americans for Democratic Action and Council for a Livable World, sent a letter to Nader Thursday praising his work as consumer advocate but arguing that he cost Democrat Al Gore the 2000 election.

Nader's percentage of support in Florida and New Hampshire, if it had gone to Gore, would have secured those states and the presidency for the Democrat.

And:

Nader ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000 and is seeking the presidency this year as an independent, to the dismay of many Democrats who have appealed to him not to run.

"We call on you to stop this quixotic and destructive effort," the letter said. "The stakes are simply too high. We cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush, but your candidacy only serves to help his re-election campaign."

How dare they! These "liberal groups" want to deny 2-5% of the general voter population the chance to support and vote for the candidate of their choice. In essence they are saying, "Nope, you are not allowed to vote for your first choice for president. You must vote for who we tell you to vote for."

Isn't that the sort of thing that went on in, oh I don't know -- pre-liberation Iraq comes to mind. In any event, I call that "disenfranchisement" and if it was wrong in 2000 then it's still wrong in 2004. Maybe that's why liberals are so against the war in Iraq and feel that we should have left Saddam Hussein alone: They admired his election strategies!

Les Jones has his Thursday Gun Links up. Always a good jumping-off point for good reads.

---

Publicola reviews the details of the old U.S vs Miller, short-barrelled shotgun decision in this post.

And KABA's Nicki reports on a silly threat by a British reporter who doesn't want England used as an example by Americans of what happens when you disarm the populace.

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN and DAVID YASSKY are Democratic jerks representing their leftist liberal constituencies in New York City. They have an op-ed in the leftist trash-liner NY Daily News. Here's a quote:

Under our proposal, a firearm merchant would be liable for damages if his unsafe marketing practices led to a shooting.

There is a huge network of illegal trafficking in guns diverted from the legal marketplace. Gun companies know about it, profit from it - and could curtail it if they so chose. A few simple measures - limiting gun sales to one per customer; rigorously checking identification documents, and training staff to spot phony frontman purchasers - would dramatically reduce the flow of guns to the illegal market.

As usual, Schneiderman and Yassky are wrong. Gun makers rarely sell directly to the general public. The big ones sell through distributors. The small ones, along with the distributors, sell to gun stores. The gun stores sell to individuals. So right THERE they have told what I think is a fib.

"Rigorously checking ID..." We can't even stop kids from buying beer! Never mind. The point of this "gun industry code of conduct" is that by using the catch-all of "unsafe marketing practices" they (or the greedy trial lawyers aided by liberal NY judges) could pretty much allow ANY suit to go forward.

We need that federal law protecting gun makers. The one leftist-liberals like Kennedy and Schumer and JOHN KERRY killed with their effing gun control amendments.

Remember that -- No matter how much you might not like Bush, Kerry would eradicate the Bill of Rights and especially the Second Amendment. He is totally anti-firearm ownership and all of us must do all we can to prevent him from getting elected: Get Republicans motivated, write letters, boycot pro-Kerry companies and news media, boycot Hollywood and movies and music companies and anyone who indicates any form of support for Kerry. Use the same tools that Democrats have been using. Get involved!

Weekend Pundit has been following this and has the latest on a bill that breezed through the N.H. senate and now is in hearings by the house committee. The legislaters are for it. I believe Gov. Benson supports it. N.H. cops aren't. From the Union Leader comes this quote:

Cohen [a director of Gun Owners of New Hampshire, who was representing the national organization KeepAndBearArms.com.] noted that Vermont has not had a pistol permit since 1903.

"Why haven't we seen 100 years of bloodshed and violence in Vermont? Vermont is one of the safest states," he said.

Enfield Police Chief Peter Giese disagreed, saying the number of homicides by guns is equal to the number in New Hampshire, yet Vermont has half the population.

"Vermont leads the Northeast states in gun violence," he said.

I think Giese is wrong. Vermont has such a small population that all it took was a double-murder last year (a teen killing his parent and her lover I believe) to "skew" statistics. In point of fact, averaged over the last 20 years, Vermont has had the lowest per-capita murder-by-gun rate in the nation. Enfield is a "moved here from away" town about 20 miles from Vermont, and Giese is a flatlander by nature.

..."Fuzz."

"Fuzz who?"

"Get the fuzz out of the way 'cause we're bustin' in and searchin' your fuzzin' home for whatever we fuzzin' want and we don't need no stinkin' warrant..."

---

Welcome to uh... Iran ... I mean China ... I mean Nazi Germany ... Oh wait, I actually and depressingly mean America. Or should I say, "Welcome to THX-1138" where cops no longer need obey or heed the Fourth Amendment. You might remember that one:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Apparently that minor affirmation by the founders of the United States of America is now just water under the bridge. I really am going to try not to go into full "rant mode" but folks, it's tough...

From WDSU TV in New Orleans:

It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.

Leaders in law enforcement say it will keep officers safe, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

The decision in United States v. Kelly Gould, was made March 24 by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here's the clincher:

New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new search power, which is effective immediately, will be used judiciously.

Yah. Police departments in major cities are known for their judicious use of the legal system. The judges who decided to make this astoundingly un-American, un-constitutional decision deserve to be... Oh, sorry, we don't have much of a 1st Amendment around here anymore either.

I am just in awe of how citizens -- let's call ourselves "subjects" now -- have become nothing more than pods in The Matrix. And I see no hue-and-cry from anyone. Naturally the left is silent since this fits in with their plan to control all of our lives. But where --oh where-- are the libertarians' and conservatives' voices?

Most cops are good people. But there are some (and isn't that why we have a Bill of Rights?) who are not, they're on a power trip and would abuse their power over us.

"Oh! I don't like that guy, I think I fear for my safety and I'll bust in and search his house. I don't need a reason, I don't need to go before a judge and "make my case" any longer because these sick, evil, bastard judges have decided that America should look a little more like some banana republic, or maybe adopt the modus operandi of Laos or Singapore or North Korea."

Every two-bit corrupt cop can now just bust into your home and search it for what ever he/she wants without cause. Oh yeah, they would only use it with discretion. Right! This is fucking evil. This is anti-American. This is the most diseased Circuit Court decision ever handed down in the short history of our once (but apparently not anymore) great nation.

A very, very, very deep ditch with all of them. Dammit! I would hope that this quickly makes it's way to the Supreme Court but these days who the fuck knows how they would rule? It amazes me as to how much more wisdom our founders had than we seem to exhibit today:

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

--Benjamin Franklin

Words to live by. And yet, we seem to have forgotten them. Certainly the cow-shit judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have. Damn them to hell.

I apologize for the lighter than usual posting during the past week. [Here it comes, the excuses --ed.] [Hey, it's my blog and I'll whine if I want to... --js] It's going to be tough this week too.

At my real -- pays me something -- job, we're wrapping up a huge sale. As Manager of Internet Sales, and Customer Service for the company, and also doing floor time at one of our showrooms, I've (we've) been flat-out as customers takes advantage of the final weeks of our Spring Sale. And of course I'm responsible for maintaining the company's website, including sale postings, and last week I also had to prepare and send out our company spam promotional emails. It's been long hours. And on top of that, April 1st is "Inventory Day" for the company and also I do the "End of Month" accounting...

In addition, a local gay organization that I do free web design and site maintenance for is having their grand opening this week and I've been busy doing their website updates.

On top of that, last Friday I launched my new (other) blog, Tarazet which is dedicated to pet lovers everywhere. And by the way, as a Movable Type blog, it has comments. If Tarazet works out, Alphecca might also become an MT blog in a couple months.

Therefore, in conclusion, to sum-up, I haven't had the time I normally do for Alphecca. Sorry. this week won't be any better but next week definitely will.

So Bush and Kerry and the congressional committee are blathering on about weapons of mass destruction.

Now that's a WMD! The new S&W; Model 500 Magnum Revolver. Look at that mo-fo! 10 1/2 inch barrel, it looks like something Captain Kirk would have carried instead of that faggy phasor. Never mind the fun you'd have with a monster like that, think of the look in some mutant criminal's face when you point that thing at them... And I just know that somewhere out there is a really wealthy reader who would love to buy one for me. Just email me and I'll give you the name of my local FFL dealer to ship it to... Oh well, nice fantasy... Onto the business at hand, examining the bias exhibited by Yahoo over the links they choose for their Gun Control Debate Page.

What brought that bad-boy to mind was this story in SFGate about a California county attempting to ban .50 caliber weapons. Notice how the writer opens the story:

Contra Costa County's move to ban the sale of .50-caliber rifles is the opening salvo of what could be a fierce battle pitting terrorism fighters against firearms owners.

Talk about bias! As if people who want lots of gun control are just "terrorism fighters" and anyone who's against gun control must somehow be for terrorism or at least not for fighting against it. Here's their rational:

Supporters of the ban worry that the 28-pound weapons [.50 caliber rifles], which reportedly can fire bullets capable of penetrating steel and concrete from as far as a mile away, could be used by terrorists to mount a catastrophic attack on a refinery, a chemical plant or on trains.

But gun advocates say the ban is meaningless and infringes on their rights to carry weapons.

I'll ignore the actual data that says that by the time a .50 caliber bullet has travelled a mile, it might still penetrate flesh but certainly not steel and concrete, and just say that these are not the weapons of choice for terrorists within our shores. But more than that, notice that the gun-banners are now suddenly claiming that their goal is only to prevent terrorist attacks (yet they refuse to support President Bush, who has actually taken steps to fight terrorism.) And "gun advocates" are portrayed as folks who think they can carry anything and don't care about terrorist attacks.

It goes without saying that 99% of gun-rights advocates are probably the fiercest defenders of America, our shores, and of course, our liberties and way of life. This SF Gate story is bias of the highest order by an alledged journalist who has allowed his personal beliefs to tarnish a newspaper article.

Speaking of bias (which we do around here...) how's this for a Chicago Tribune story title: Gun Curbs Suffer Setbacks. Here again, a newspaper loads their bias at the beginning of a story to indicate their disdain for the content they're forced to report. The title would lead you to believe that curbing guns is a noble cause that has somehow been misguidedly thwarted. Here's the "plot":

The Illinois Senate Friday approved legislation to allow retired police officers and former military police officers to carry concealed weapons, the latest example of a growing mood against gun control in the legislature despite the Democratic takeover of both chambers.

As if, "My God, we finally control the legislature and yet they're going to allow retired cops to carry guns!" As if that (retired cops -- always a nefarious group, huh? -- being allowed to carry concealed) is somehow going to cause mayhem in Illinois streets. As if they (the authors) somehow think that as soon as a cop retires, he becomes a dangerous suspect not to be trusted. If I was a cop in Illinois I'd be big-time insulted by this op-ed masquerading as a news article. Here's another quote:

On Thursday, the NRA successfully pushed separate bills through the House and Senate that would lower to 18 from 21 the age at which a person may apply for a firearm owner's identification card without a parent's permission.

Study that paragraph. Apparently the NRA now IS the legislature. State senators didn't introduce the measure, the NRA did! Incidentally, lowering the age to 18 means those people could buy long guns only. Federal law prohibits anyone under 21 from buying a handgun. The writers thoughtfully left that out. This begs the age old question that if an 18-year-old is "old enough" to tote a firearm in a war-zone half-way around the world, why can't he be trusted to protect himself and family at home?

USA Today had a point-counterpoint pair of op-eds about the ability of some "mentally-ill" people to obtain firearms. The position of the newspaper:

The arrest last week of an Ohio man as the prime suspect in a 10-month string of highway shootings in the state has turned a momentary spotlight on the mentally ill's easy access to guns.

Charles McCoy Jr., who has been charged with one assault count, has a history of psychiatric problems. But, apparently, he had no record of being committed to an institution or judged mentally incompetent. So he was not prohibited from buying a gun.

Even if such a record existed, it likely would not have shown up in a required background check for a gun purchase. That's because only a handful of states make any mental-health information available to the national background databank used for checking gun buyers. Nearly two-thirds don't even compile such information. As a result, a 1968 federal law designed to keep guns away from the mentally ill is toothless.

The "opposition" to this stance came from Robert Bernstein, executive director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a national legal advocacy group for the rights of people with mental disabilities. He says:

Encouraging the sharing of mental-health records with the national instant-background-check system would do little to prevent gun violence and could lead to more discrimination against those with mental illness. Without strong protections, such information could be shared, creating new avenues for discrimination unrelated to gun use -- in housing, credit or employment.

Since names on the checklist are not automatically purged, individuals could remain on the list as ''mentally defective'' forever. A 35-year-old woman committed for depression once in 1990 would remain in the database for life. Ironically, early reports indicate that McCoy would not have been included since he voluntarily sought treatment.

Bernstein started off his piece by stating that "...focusing on McCoy's history of mental illness misses the larger point: Guns are dangerous and shouldn't be easy for anyone to obtain. That pretty much shows where he stands on the overall issue.

Look, no one is going to argue that people with a history of violent mental illness should be allowed to possess firearms, not even the demonized NRA. But if there is a problem with reporting such illnesses then maybe states should do what Vermont used to do by having the instant check first check state records and then check in with the FBI. But there has to be a way to seperate (and protect) such information, such as the true nature of the illness and if it was simple depression, there has to be a mechanism to purge those records. No easy answers on this one.

Well, at least Yahoo included one lonely link to someone on our side of the issue: John R. Lott, Jr. had an op-ed in last week's NRO which reported that even the gun-control group, The Violence Policy Center, admits that the phony "assault weapons ban" would have no effect on crime if it was allowed to expire. Here's a quote:

An example? Take the statements made recently on National Public Radio by a representative of the Violence Policy Center. NPR described the VPC as "one of the more aggressive gun groups in Washington." Yet the VPC's representative claimed: "If the existing assault-weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass."

Read the whole thing of course. But remember that quote from VPC: Their objective is to get a "particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets." All firearms are lethal, therefore the unstated goal is to ban all guns!

Anyway, that was about it. I guess Richard Clark's book pushed IMPORTANT news out of the way... Thanks for stopping by!