NYT: Endangering Bloggers' Lives Since 2005

Well, it is all over the net. The New York Times reporter, Sarah Boxer, wrote a piece in the "arts" section about blogs. Specifically, the brothers from Iraq The Model. Unfortunately, the piece did not talk about bloggins as a forum, an art, a method of communication and exchanging ideas. Doe not talk about the phenomenom of citizen journalism or creative writing on easily maintained personal journals.

No, what she did was repeat a rumor about the brothers that had been going on for sometime and heated up in the last month with an exchange between the brothers' site and another, extremely anti-war site that claimed the brothers were part of the CIA. Rumors that have been refuted time and again.

Normally, we would probably laugh, as we have always done, at such ignorance, except for the fact that her story was not only printed in the NYT, but picked up by the Time's News Wire, the BBC and assorted other "news" sources. News sources that have a huge readership in the APU (Arab Parallel Universe: Sandmonkey and Iraqi Bloggers Central), where rumors, innuendos and conspiracies are the fair of the day and where we know, the Jihadists read their news as well (how else does OBL know what some loon wrote and quote it in Arabic?)

The NYT requires log in, so I'll put her article here:

hen I telephoned a man named Ali Fadhil in Baghdad last week, I wondered who might answer. A C.I.A. operative? An American posing as an Iraqi? Someone paid by the Defense Department to support the war? Or simply an Iraqi with some mixed feelings about the American presence in Iraq? Until he picked up the phone, he was just a ghost on the Internet.

Advertisement


The mystery began last month when I went online to see what Iraqis think about the war and the Jan. 30 national election. I stumbled into an ideological snake pit. Out of a list of 28 Iraqi blogs in English at a site called Iraqi Bloggers Central, I clicked on Iraq the Model because it promised three blogging brothers in one, Omar, Mohammed and Ali.

It delivered more than that. The blog, which is quite upbeat about the American presence in Iraq, had provoked a deluge of intrigue and vitriol. People posting messages on an American Web site called Martini Republic accused the three bloggers of working for the C.I.A., of being American puppets, of not being Iraqis and even of not existing at all.

Then abruptly, at the end of last month, Ali quit the blog without telling his brothers while they were in the United States attending a blogging conference at Harvard and taking part in a tour sponsored by Spirit of America, a nongovernmental group founded after 9/11 that describes itself as "advancing freedom, democracy and peace abroad."

Ali's last post sounded ominous, a kind of blogger's "Dear John" note:

"I just can't keep doing this anymore. My stand regarding America has never changed. I still love America and feel grateful to all those who helped us get our freedom and are still helping us establishing democracy in our country. But it's the act of some Americans that made me feel I'm on the wrong side here. I will expose these people in public very soon, and I won't lack the means to do this."

What happened?

Ali seemed to have gone through a radical transformation when he found out that his brothers, both described as dentists on their Web site, had met President Bush. Odd. I scrolled down a bit into the past and found that in mid-December a conspiracy theory had emerged about Iraq the Model on Martini Republic.

One of the principal bloggers there, Joseph Mailander, had some questions for the Iraqi brothers. He wanted to know whether someone in the United States government or close to it had set up the blog. (The Web host, based in Abilene, Tex., is called CIATech Solutions.) And what about the two brothers' tour of the United States? Did the American government "have a shadow role in promoting it?"

The questions boiled down to whether Iraq the Model had been "astroturfed." Astroturfing occurs when a supposedly grass-roots operation actually is getting help from a powerful think tank, governmental agency or any outside source with an agenda. Why else, Martini Republic asked, would the brothers have been feted in Washington?

Ali, while he was still at Iraq the Model, tried to quell some of the doubts: "Hi, I would be happy to answer your questions, as you do raise some valid questions." To the question of the Web host in Abilene, he responded, "All I remember is that we started our blog through the free blogger.com!"

Ali explained the name of the Web host, CIATech Solutions, by pasting in an e-mail message he got from an employee of the company explaining that the C.I.A. in the name is short for Complex Internet Applications and that the company "has nothing to do with the U.S. government."

As for financing, Ali said that Iraq the Model had received private donations from Americans, Australians, French, British and Iraqi citizens. In addition, the brothers were promised money from Spirit of America. But, he added, "We haven't got it yet."

That did not quiet the suspicions on Martini Republic. A man posting as Gandhi reported that his "polite antiwar comments were always met with barrages of crude abuse" from Iraq the Model's readers. His conclusion? The blog "is a refuge for people who do not want to know the truth about Iraq, and the brothers take care to provide them with a comfortable information cocoon." He added, "I hope some serious attention will be brought to bear on these Fadhil brothers and reveal them as frauds."

What kind of frauds? One reader suggested that the brothers were real Iraqis but were being coached on what to write. Another, in support of that theory, noted the brothers' suspiciously fluent English. A third person observed that coaching wasn't necessary. All the C.I.A. would need to do to influence American opinion was find one pro-war blog and get a paper like USA Today to write about it.

Martini Republic pointed out that the pro-war blog was getting lots of attention from papers like The Wall Street Journal and USA Today while antiwar bloggers like Riverbend, who writes Baghdad Burning, had gone unsung. Surely Iraq the Model did not represent the mainstream of Iraqi thinking?

Ali finally got exasperated: "The thing that upset me the most is that if there are some powers that are trying to use us and our writings as a propaganda tool, you and other bloggers as well as some of the media outlets are doing the same with anti-American Iraqi bloggers."

But his "if" seemed to signal that Ali, too, was indeed worried about being used.

Advertisement


That was on Dec. 12. Ali's "Dear John" letter followed on Dec. 19. Then he quietly resurfaced on the Internet as a blogger called Iraqi Liberal and, when that name generated too much online debate about what "liberal" meant, Free Iraqi.

Using an e-mail address listed on Iraq the Model, I got in touch with Ali to see what in the world was going on. And last week I finally got to talk on the telephone to Ali Fadhil, a 34-year-old doctor who was born to Sunni Muslims but said, "I don't look at myself as one now."

Why did he quit Iraq the Model? When was he going to expose the Americans who made him feel he was on the wrong side?

He was surprisingly frank. The blog had changed him. When the blog began, he said, "People surprised me with their warmth and how much they cared about us." But as time passed, he said, "I felt that this is not just goodwill, giving so much credit to Iraq the Model. We haven't accomplished anything, really."

His views took a sharp turn when his two brothers met with the president. There wasn't supposed to be any press coverage about their trip to the United States, he said. But The Washington Post wrote about the meeting, and the Arabic press ended up translating the story, which, Ali felt, put his family in real danger.

Anyway, he said, he didn't see any sense in his brothers' meeting with President Bush. "My brothers say it happened accidentally, that it was not planned." But why, he asked, take such an "unnecessary risk"? He explained his worries: "Here some people would kill you for just writing to an American."

Ali never did expose the people who made him feel that he was on the wrong side, and in fact conceded that he couldn't. As he confided on the phone, "I didn't know who the people were." Instead, he started his own blog. He said he had always wanted to do that anyway.

"Me and my brothers," he said, "we generally agree on Iraq and the future." (He is helping his brother Mohammed, who is running on the Iraqi Pro-Democracy Party ticket in the Jan. 30 election.) But there is one important difference: "My brothers have confidence in the American administration. I have my questions."

Now that seems genuine.

In response, I wrote this reply to the four major editors of the "paper".

To Whom It May Concern,

I read the piece by Sarah Boxer on January 18 titled "Pro-American Iraqi Blog Provokes Intrigue and Vitriol" and I was very concerned about the piece and Ms. Boxer's intent.

While it is certain that internet blogging is opening a new frontier in communication and exchanging information which has, on occasion, placed it at loggerheads with the press and other media, I cannot fathom why Ms. Boxer has chosen to do her article on a rumor about the alleged CIA connections of an Iraqi blog as opposed to the hundreds of other things that they've covered concerning life in Iraq, elections, finance, etc (including a post about meeting with artists, poets and actors of Iraq, which would have been more in line with your "art" section).

The piece was nothing short of a gossip column. Worse yet, while gossip may damage an author, artist or actor's career or public image, this particular article can be described as more than irresponsible. I don't think it is too hysterical to point out it might even be deadly.

What Ms. Boxer and the editors of the New York Times seem to have failed to understand is the current situation in Iraq and the Middle East in general tends to lend itself to the spreading of such rumors and conspiracy theories. Rumors and conspiracy theories that can effectively lead to the injury or death of the "tainted", particularly as the term "CIA" is closely associated with every terrible incident, man made or by nature, that afflicts the region.

I will give Ms. Boxer some credit for attempting to dispell the CIA rumor with the explanation of the internet host's name, but she barely lends a sentence to it while having spent an entire opening paragraph building these men up to near bogeymen with "CIA" stenciled on their foreheads. Then she closes the article by leaving the question open with her comment "Now that seems genuine" as if anything else that was said or explained is open for question aside from Ali Fahdil's comment about the administration's intentions.

Yes, these men lead semi-public lives with a popular blog and running for elections in their country. Yes, they've given interviews before, had pictures taken and even had an article in the Washington Post picked up by Arab press. And, yes, that may have made them people of interest to the anti-democracy groups in their country. But, as I have tried to explain here and will do one more time, the connotation of "CIA" next to their names will quite likely raise them on the list of "notable people" that the insurgents/terrorists, whatever the popular name for them in the NYT, would be interested in. An interest that, once again, can be quite deadly.

It's not just about the article, which is in the "arts" section and could be considered a back page skip by someone looking for intelligence on the political situation in Iraq, but it was picked up by the BBC and is on their internet site now. Good for Ms. Boxer, but not so good for our Iraqi friends as the BBC has quite a readership in Iraq and the Middle East at large. Your people would know that if they spent anytime looking at the BBC Arabic site and forum which gets quite a bit of traffic, including some commenters who are blatantly anti-American and sometimes even Islamist Jihadist making vague threats against their Iraqi brethern. I'm not just talking some people from Saudi Arabia, either. We're talking Syria, Jordan and Iraq. Yes, the BBC has readership in Iraq and it's not all friendly to the democracy process.

In short, Ms. Boxer has taken a small, moving red target from the internet, expanded it to about three foot in diameter and placed it squarely in the middle of these brothers' shoulders. I'm thinking this was an honest mistake on Ms. Boxer's part and the art editor apparently does not understand the region.

I'm not sure what should be asked of the NYT at this time. An apology would only keep the story alive and so would putting more information up regarding the brothers and the multitude of proofs that prove that they are who they say they are.

In the end, I suppose what one could ask for is that NYT art editor, the NYT editors in general and Ms. Boxer to consider next time, more things than idle gossip or talking about blogs, but possibly the safety of people that do not deserve to die for an article in the arts section.

Thank you for your time.

Here are the addresses I forwarded a letter to:

the-arts@nytimes.com
letters@nytimes.com
executive-editor@nytimes.com
managing-editor@nytimes.com

Feel free to explain to these, ahem, brilliant people and explain about how the real world works.

Summary only...

Medieval Occult of Sufism and Modern Day Suicide Bombers

Just a quick post from a comment I posted on another site after somebody gave me the website to an anti-occult group. Now, I'm not posting the anti-occult site mainly because it links to bogus conspiracy theories about 9/11 and boasts Thierry's book on the CIA inside job on 9/11. However, the information about sufism was well sourced and quoted many notable authoris from the 19th century forward who have studied ancient occults and their practices. When I get a chance, I will source these items from other websites or online books.

IN the meantime, I thought some of you would be interested in some of the parallels between medieval occult of Islam and the current day rash of suiciders we see today.

I was just looking at a site provided to me by sleepless. The site itself was a bit bogus with conspiracy theories, however, it linked to specific books and studies on sufism and it's transcendental manifestations. It pointed to books on the history of certain occults (now often considered heretical) within Islam.

One of the sufi occults referred to was the Nazariya (sp?) Ashashin (from which the word "assassin" is originated in modern english). According to studies of this group, the accolytes were first isolated from their normal societal group, then challenged on their faith through slow question and answering. the accolytes were assigned one teacher, an imam of the highest order, who was skilled in breaking down the students faith.

Slowly, they were brought to the level understanding that their faith and cultural boundaries and the rituals thereof (ie, praying, fasting, etc) were laws for the "others" or those who were not privy to the great knowledge of the adherents. Then they were taught that their faith was only one dimension and adhering solely to those beliefs would not bring them to the ultimate knowledge of the inner, personal relationship with the ONE (ie God, Allah, Higher Being) so they had to throw that away in order to achieve the next level.

Once they had done so, the secret or knowledge of the personal relationship is revealed. From there they are convinced that they are above the others of their faith (who are sheep in need of a shephard and guardians and who will not attain the paradise of the adherents)
kat-in pajamas/missouri | Email | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 6:41 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During this process, the initiates were fed hashish for several days until they became sleepy in their austere surroundings. Then they would be carried to a separate area that was a garden with many trees, running water, beautiful birds and animals and women to see to their every needs.

The imams would then explain that the initiates had attained "paradise" and in order to remain there or return, they had to perform the tasks assigned to them by the Imam who they are taught in the sixth or seventh cycle is the interceder (due to their higher level of personal relationship with the ONE) on their behalf.

Most of the tasks set for them were of course, assassination. Having shuffled off their original belief system and the rituals of their religion, they could easily take (and were instructed to) and assimilate any and all parts of the religion or rituals they were exposed to during their assignment to infiltrate other cultures or societies and carry out their mission.

This occult was active from 1097 to approximately 1363 (?) until they were crushed by the Othoman usurper to the caliphate.

However, the occult had a tradition of disseminating throughout local societies as well as hiding in the mountains surrounding Iran (Persia) and many of their traditions were able to survive.
kat-in pajamas/missouri | Email | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 6:42 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you read some of the other sites, sam at Hammoribi for instance, they often refer to the insurgents/terrorists as sufis/wahabists.

Technically, the wahabis believe that pure sufism is heretical but it has obviously not stopped them from adopting the practices in some manner to their version of Islam. It is also why the "mainstream" Islam considers wahabism to be an occult or heresy (of course, there are a lot of separate issues about the lineage of Mohammads successors, the number of "true imams" 6, 9 or 12 depending on your sect of Islam, etc).

Looking at the practices of the Hamas, whom Zawahir has general praise for their practices and sole dedication to the removal of Israel and the return of ALL the land to the Palestinians (he doesn't like the socialist, kleptocracy of the PLO), they follow a near similar path in which they first single out a youth at the mosque who may be accepting of other ideas (ie, who may challenge the lessons of the local imam). They place him/her with a teacher. At a certain level, they isolate the potential martyr and then concentrate on bringing them to the "higher level" of understanding. According to a special that I saw sometime last year, this isolation period is between two weeks and one month. Probably depends on the student and/or their need for an operative.

At which time, while not physically taking them to the garden of paradise as the original occult did, the acceptance of paradise with the 72 beautiful virgins (or whatever paradise seems to apply for women), is drilled into them as their reward for following the path or completing the task. Very similar to the sufi occult of the 11th century.

Also noted, the occult of that period would give hashish or other halucinatory drugs (knocks down inhibition, too), to the initiates. You may recall during operations in Najaf and fallujah, drug paraphernalia was found in large quantities.

I believe that a concentrated format of the original sufi initiation is being performed on the suicide bombers (obviously, they have other qualities that already point to them as potentials, but we are talking about how it occurs in the end). Since they cannot provide a literal garden of paradise, it is the theoretical that is provided.

Mind you, this is my current limited understanding of the situation. I'm sure there are other factors, but it is interesting the parallels to this occult and current practices.

Summary only...

Why am I Single? Let Me Count The Ways: 20: Nasty Little Surprises

So I called up the Captain
Please bring me my wine
He said
We haven't had that spirit here since 1969
And still those voices are calling from far away
Wake you up in the middle of the night
Just to hear them say
Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place
Such a lovely face
They're livin' it up at the Hotel California
What a nice surprise
Bring your alibis
-Eagles


You ever think you know somebody? Know who they are? What they are? What they stand for? What they would or would not do? Aren't they always the people that surprise you? I mean, not just little bitty surprises, but big, jaw dropping, mind numbing surprises.

The people that you wished them to be, or imagined them to be, are quite often not the reality. I think we all live in a sort of invisible box of glass. It surrounds us and it has a way of distorting shapes, filtering out things that we don't want to know or hear. Sometimes the glass is rosy, some times it's dark and gloomy and some times it just has strange anomalies in the glass that, when you look out of it, completely changes the shape, the reality of the person outside of it or the situation.

Or, maybe, we are all victims of self preservation and that self preservation demands that we delude ourselves about reality because it's the only way we could submit our selves, against the will of our self preservation that would otherwise have us running in the other direction, to committing ourselves to people and things that are just...not...quite...right.

I think I have stated on a number of occasions that we are, in general, a selfish lot. The most giving person on this planet will always go through some self test of what it is they can give or take and what effect it will have on them. I imagine, before Mother Theresa became the most celebrated giver on the planet, that she even considered her options and the impact on her life. The thing that always over comes this selfishness is our will. Or, better yet, will power. Couple that with a general background of being taught "right" form "wrong", many are able to push this selfishness down and move on for the good of another. Or, in the case of Mother Theresa and folks like her, for the good of many.

Of course, there are those of us with complexes who think through a little judicious application of unselfishness, we might save the world. Or even just one or two people from themselves. Problem is, you can never tell for sure what the other people, or the world for that matter, are going to do. Throws a monkey wrench into the situation.

Take the recent tsunami in Indonesia. Super power to the rescue. One of the wealthiest countries in the world gears up, grabs up their life saving materials, runs to the other side of the planet and starts in to saving people. Thousands, if not millions, of it's citizens give private donations, amounting to nearly a billion dollars. What happens next? "No thanks. You can help us to this line -----, but after that, you've got to go. You might expect something from us you know, if we let you help and that is just not a good idea. We'd much rather suffer and maybe die than be beholding to you."

Now, if that's not an excess of pride, what is it? It's a wonder that people offer anyone any assistance.

On a personal level, this has happened on a number of occasions. If there is one thing that I did learn over the years it is that the minute you become the interceder, you will be vilified. No good deed goes unpunished. And forbid it if you try to be the mediator without bias. Both parties will believe you to be biased to the other and they will both hate your guts. Actually, it's true either way you look at it.

Not that it's stopped me or any number of people from trying to do "good deeds".

It's even worse if you try to interfere in someone's personal relationship. Believe me, a situation where there is love and/or hate going on, you are going to be the hated if you interfere. Nobody is going to love you. The other truth I've found is that people in love will never listen to someone talk bad about their "love" or just give them advice. They aren't going to listen or, worse yet, you will instantly be the bad guy.

I found this out with my friend, Lisa. Not that she hated my guts, per se, but she definitely thought I was at least a "wench", or jealous, or prejudicial or something. Well, one or two of those last things could have been true. Maybe all three. On the other hand, if they end up in the situation that you said they would, don't think they are going to give you kudos for having predicted it. Don't think that they are going to love you more if you say "I told you so" and refraining from saying "I told you so" won't matter because, even if they won't "take" your advice, they remember it and some how, even if you don't say "I told you so", that phrase gets stuck on the end of your advice in their minds and keeps echoing there.

I told you so...I told you soo...I told you soooo...

Because, of course, it's their own conscience telling them, it's just that that conscience eerily sounds like your voice. It's much easier to blame you or your advice for that echo then to do a little self analysis and realize their own conscience had been warning them and yet they chose to give themselves permission to do whatever it was they did.

In the late spring, we had come back with Lisa's truck. Her truck that she got from her dad in Illinois on our funny little trip to the animal farm. I noticed that Jim was coming and staying at our apartment more and more. Staying for days on end. Whole weeks. And still not a job in sight. Just daily round ups of the cable cartoon network, several beers, packs of cigarettes and some twinkies. Maybe a hoagie wrapper from the convenience store.

I was getting very nervous about the situation. I had a deep conversation with Lisa about the difference between Jimbo's dreams and the reality of him sitting in our over stuffed chair getting stuffed and apparently stoned every day. He, of course, was assuring Lisa that he was looking for a job, but they were hard to find. Of course, they were if you didn't actually know how to read the paper or dial a phone or speak like a normal human being. But the construction business was in full swing. It was a decent spring after a light winter and the housing business was booming.

The only break I got was when she would take him home on a Sunday and I wouldn't have to see him for a few days. You probably figured out by now that he and I got along like oil and water. "Sniping" probably didn't really describe the constant back and forth we had going on. It probably drove Lisa to distraction to know that her best friend (I think I was, anyway) and her new love, didn't like each other. And she was the bone between us. Those weeks she took him home probably had the dual personality of a relief from the tension and the pang of separation.

I know I said to Lisa that she should be careful and that I thought that he was not all that he said he was. Not that he was a braggart, but a liar I was sure of it.

One night, I went out with our friend Wendy (Amazon Wendy) and Dawn III. Lisa had opted to stay home with Jim and have some "alone" time. Dawn, Wendy and I were probably the worst group of people to get together and go out. We had a good time, no doubt, but we each had our own little personality things going on. Dawn could be quite overbearing, Wendy was insecure and I was a mix of the two: slightly over bearing and a little insecure. The only thing that saved us from our selves is our charming...er..personalities. We could charm a snake. Of course, the snake either bolted shortly after the meeting or turned on us to bite in self preservation.

On this particular evening, we stayed out late, went to breakfast and spent about two hours talking about men. Not in a good way of course. We're talking about three women with some personal history here, so, naturally, our conversation was not flattering to the male of the species. None of us actually liked Jimbo either, so he was a feature of our conversation. Then we all jumped in Dawn's little Honda something or rather and they drove me home. We all lived near one another and it gave us an opportunity to do the "designated driver" thing.

Dawn pulled up in front of my apartment complex. After a few more laughs at the expense of men, she got out and held the front seat forward so I could climb out of the back seat. Climbing describes it perfectly because this little car only sat about three inches off the ground and you had to find a purchase with your feet and hands to pull yourself out of the back. It's a rough way to go when you've had a few drinks.

We laughed some more and I turned to walk up the side walk towards the little bridge that led to the second floor of the apartments. The apartment building sat in a broad indention in the land with banks of dirt and grass surrounding it, topped off by a row of pine trees all the way around to afford some privacy for those whose sliding glass doors faced the parking lots on either side of the building. The first floor apartments actually were down in the "ditch" as we called it and you had to walk across the bridge to enter the complex and then walk down some steps to get to our place or walk up to get to the others.

One thing about those pine trees, while they gave privacy, they also blocked the light from the apartments. Near the trees was pitch black, regardless of the number of lights they had in the parking lot. As I walked, Dawn and Wendy sat in the car, fixing their seat belts and having some conversation. I couldn't tell what they were talking about, because the windows were up. I waved to them once and then turned back to walk into the apartments. I noticed about halfway to the bridge, underneath one of the pine trees, was a spot of white, balled up about the size of a large white paper bag. Our place was a pretty nice complex so seeing trash was unusual.

I remember thinking to myself, "Now what kind of asshole would throw their trash out here when they only had to walk a few yards to the trash can." Right at that moment, I noticed that the ball of white moved. I did a little stutter step because, well, there was no wind to speak of. It was dead out, not even a little breeze. Then the ball of white uncurled itself and waddled out onto the side walk, freezing right in the middle.

Except, it wasn't a ball of white anymore, but a giant black, furry skunk with a big white streak down its back. It had stopped on the side walk, side ways in front of me. Its tail slightly up in a position as if deciding if it was going to need to use its "weapon" and its rather big, black beady left eye staring at me.

I froze with my right foot just in the position where I was about to set it down. I would like to say that a million things were going through my mind right then, but they weren't. The only thing in my mind was, "Don't move, don't move, don't move, don't move" over and over again. I had read somewhere that a move could make them feel like they were going to be attacked and they would spray. Okay, one other thing was gong through my mind, "Oh my God, it's a skunk, oh my God, it's a skunk," etc, etc, etc.

I heard Dawn's car suddenly go into gear and reverse from the parking space that was about five cars behind me. I knew they couldn't see the skunk for all the cars there and I didn't want to make any sudden move, so I waited until I heard the car coming near and turned my head slightly and waved. I think I waved vigorously, but I can't remember because I was deathly afraid I was about to become Pepe Le Pue's next amour.

Dawn and Wendy just waved back at me and kept driving. I kept waving. They kept driving. My heart fell into my stomach and my chanting mind went from "don't move" to "I can't believe they just left me", over and over. I really couldn't hold more than one thought in my mind.

I recalled suddenly that the giant skunk was still in front of me. I turned quickly to look at him and it seemed like he took two waddling steps in my direction. Now my heart went from my stomach to my throat at the speed of a rocket. For a few seconds, nothing entered my mind. It was blank. That was just long enough for the self preservation voice in my head to kick in:

"Okay. There's a giant skunk. He looks like he wants to spray you. He has beady black eyes. They are staring at you. He is blocking the way into the apartment. Your friends just left. What are you going to do?"

Uhhh...(can you hear the music from "Jeopardy"?)

Finally, like the engine of a car that finally kicks over after two years in storage, the pistons in my head started firing.

"I'll take "Is there another entrance to this place?" for $500, Alex."

Good answer! Next question, "How do you walk away from a skunk without being sprayed?"

"Now, can I have, "Can you back away slowly for ten paces, then turn and run like hell for the other entrance?" for $1000?"

Alrighty. You're on a roll.

And that is exactly what I did. I remembered there was another entrance at the other end of the building, about twenty five yards from there. Without taking my eyes off of Pepe, I slowly backed away. Twice, he took a waddling step in my direction, side ways, and twice I froze, never taking my eyes off his beady little eye that was facing me. Then I started the slow, short steps backwards again until I was at least ten feet away. Then I turned and ran like hell, my cowboy boots beating a loud tattoo on the concrete, once nearly slipping and killing myself on the damp residue that had collected there, all the way until I reached the other door, which I quickly threw open, ran inside and slammed shut behind me.

I looked out the glass door, but the skunk was no where in sight. The minute I took off running, he probably did the same thing too. or, at least his version of it.

Fortunately, I would not have to go to bed smelling like Eu' de Pepe.

I walked down the long hallway to our apartment, now laughing to myself and feeling the euphoria of someone who had jilted fate. I kept thinking I was going to have to give those two girls a hard time about leaving me to the mercy of a skunk while I was waving like a lunatic. I put the key in the door and laughed to myself that it was probably a good thing those two yahoos form urban ville hadn't been there with me. I probably would be stinking up the hall way or vomitting into the pine trees with two stinky companions. Lisa was going to laugh her ass off when I told her.

I opened the door and took my key out of the lock, finally looking up because the TV was on and so was the living room light. Lisa was sitting on the couch and Jimbo was in his normal position in the chair.

"Oh...Hey." Yeah, that put a damper on my mood. I forgot he was going to be there.

"Hey, Kansas!" Lisa said in that overly cheerful tone that tells you that they don't want you to know something's wrong and instantly puts you on alert anyway. "How was your evening?" Big goofy, over stretched, too many teeth smile. Uh-huh. Something was up.

"Okay, I guess. Right up until I almost got sprayed by a skunk out front of the apartment." I had a feeling that was not going to be the only surprise I was getting.

"A skunk?" She was still smiling too much.

My eyes were taking in the surroundings and there was something different about them. I just couldn't put my finger on it. "Yeah, a skunk," I said as I turned to the coat closet next to the front door to hang up my jacket, "a big fat one that looks like he's been enjoying our garbage for awhile." As I reached for the closet door knob, I noticed that Jimbo's cowboy boots and work boots were sitting to the side and a lariat was hanging from it.

"Kansas," she said, tentatively as I continued, contemplating that there was still something a little off, but unable to put my finger on it.

"Hmmm?" I reached into the closet to pull out a hanger for my jacket and that's when I noticed that the closet seemed a little more full than when I left six hours earlier. I refocused my eyes as I stood staring into the closet. It was full of stuff. Jim's stuff. Clothes, tool belt, tool box, some other items that I can't remember now. I was standing there frozen with the hanger in my right hand and my jacket dangling from my left. Now I realized why I had been confused about the living room and foyer area. There were a few more things of Jim's hanging around then usual.

"Uh, Kansas?" Lisa got up off the couch and was slowly walking my way.

"Lisa, was there something you forgot to tell me?" Like, that you were moving Jim in here without asking me or talking to me like I asked you to so I could decide what to do, like get my own place. That's what was going through my mind because that was what was supposed to happen. And she knew it, too, which is why she was acting so overly bright when I came in and they were waiting up for me, because Lisa knew I'd pitch a fit.

I was looking at her now and she was standing there, frozen like I'd been earlier, keeping at least five feet between us. Jim was behind her acting unconcerned, still sitting in his chair and staring at the TV. She started babbling something about Jim getting a job up here and needing to be close to it and how much money it cost her to keep driving down there and he needed to be somewhere where he could get a ride to work and, and, and..

"Lisa, this is bullshit! We had an agreement!" A lot of things were going through my mind. My friend had betrayed my trust. Broken our agreement. Went behind my back. Not just any friend, my best friend who was like my sister.

Lisa was suddenly red in the face, too, probably a mix of embarrassment and anger, "It was a spur of the moment thing and..."

"Spur of the moment, my ass! We wouldn't have been talking about it if you hadn't have been thinking about it."

"Carlos practically lived with us for a year!" Now she was standing with her hands on her hips facing me, her blonde hair was in a pony tail and it was dancing around to her words.

"First of all, I asked you if you were okay with that. Carlos even asked you personally if you minded him staying. Second of all, you were the one that kept pushing him on me because you thought he was a nice guy. So, don't give me any crap about Carlos."

Jimbo had stood up and started walking over to where Lisa was standing. He pointed his finger at me and said angrily, "Lisa pays half the rent here and she can do whatever she wants!"

I rounded on Jim and for two seconds I thought about clobbering him. Of course, for two seconds, I thought he was going to clobber me, too. "Jim, shut the hell up. This is between Lisa and I. If you'd been any kind of man, you would have insisted on asking yourself." But, of course, this was the kind of guy he was. The back door kind of guy. Sneaky, lying, snake kind of guy. You think I'm being too harsh?

Lisa turned to Jim and started pushing him back towards the living room, "Don't get involved in this. This is between Kansas and me." He was saying some bullshit about kicking my ass, believe it or not.

"I'll have your ass thrown in jail before you can say "lawyer", asshole. I don't care if you are Lisa's boyfriend. Is this what you wanted, Lisa?" I meant him AND the situation. Ms. Lisa always wanted to avoid confrontation and always seemed to end up in it anyway. "Fuck, this. I'm leaving!"

I threw the hanger back in the closet, jerked open the front door and stomped out of the apartment building until I reached the front walkway. I stopped for a second because I didn't know what the hell I was going to do. I didn't have a car. I'd been sharing rides with Lisa that whole time and we worked, lived and played in the same places so it had seemed unnecessary. Right until then, that is.

I suddenly remembered the skunk and looked around, but it was nowhere in sight. It had waddled off somewhere safe. Safe because I'm pretty sure if the bastard had been out there, I would have kicked its ass to the other end of the building, stinkiness be damned.

I felt the tears starting to well up in my eyes. I'd been living such a nice comfortable life from one moment to the next and that was coming to an end. Not only had my best friend gone behind my back, but she had moved in a guy that I thought was an asshole and he had threatened to hit me. In all of our moments of displeasure, nitpicking and sniping, that had never happened before. I didn't know what I was going to do. Then I remembered the convenience store across the street from our complex and the telephone out front of it.

I walked to the telephone, searching for some change and wiping the slowly welling tears off my cheeks. I had to stop for a minute because I couldn't remember anyone's telephone number. Suddenly, Wendy's number popped into my head and I dialed the phone. "Wendy," sniffle, sniffle, "can you come and get me?" Gasp, sob, sniffle.

"Oh my God, Kansas!" Wendy quickly came awake on the other end of the phone. "What's wrong?"

"When you guys dropped me off, there was a big skunk and then I went into the apartment and Lisa moved Jim in, all his stuff was at the apartment and we had a fight and Jim threatened to hit me so I left and I'm standing outside of the QT," I gasped out. More sobbing and the tears were coming faster. "Can you come and get me, please?"

"Okay, okay. Just give me a minute to throw some clothes on. I'll be right there."

I stood outside for a few minutes, pulled myself together and wiped my tears on the sleeve of my jacket. I went inside and got a coke before coming back out and leaning against the brick facade of the building under the eaves. It had started raining lightly and I stared out at the puddles forming in the parking lot. I couldn't really think. I didn't know what I was going to do. I really didn't know if I could afford an apartment by myself.

Wendy finally pulled up. She got out and came over to give me a hug, "I'm sorry, Kansas."

"It's okay. Do you mind if we get in the car? It's a little chilly out here." It was still spring and I was a little damp. We got in the car and I just sat there for a few minutes, maybe ten, not saying anything, but staring out the windshield and crying. Everything that I had enjoyed was coming to an end. Reality was here and that reality meant that we would never be like this forever, just two girls against the world. Things were going to change, whether I liked it or not and I was going to have to start doing things and thinking about things by myself.

I finally told Wendy what happened, including the skunk which we both laughed about. "What are you going to do?" She asked. "Do you want to come back with me tonight?"

I thought about it for a moment. "No. I think I should go back to the apartment. Lisa is probably worried sick about me and I haven't called to tell her where I am." It had been almost two hours since I stomped out of the apartment and the sun was just starting to pinken the sky. "Might as well go back and sort this out. Won't do any good to avoid it."

"You're sure? You can stay at my place if you want." Wendy, like most of my friends, was a paradox. She could be so self centered sometimes, but she could sometimes bring her head out of the clouds long enough to share an act of kindness once in awhile. Maybe more than once in awhile, you just didn't always pay attention to the kindness of people that you hung around all the time. It just was like that until it was you that needed it.

"Yeah, I'm sure. It's still raining. Do you mind driving me back? I know it's just across the street..."

"No problem, Kansas. What ever you want to do."

She drove me across the street and parked in front of the apartment building. I scrubbed my face as best as I could. "How do I look?"

"You look okay."

"Right. I look like I've been on a three day binge, huh?" I laughed a little bit. "Thanks. I mean thanks for coming and getting me. I'm sorry I made you drive all the way over here to keep me company."

"Hey, no problem. You've driven me home enough times, I think I can return the favor."

We exchanged conspiratorial smiles, because, yeah, I had driven her home on more than one occasion after a very "good" night out. I got out of the car and thanked her again, "Wait a second. If you see me waving like crazy, there's a skunk, okay?"

A little more laughter and I walked over to the bridge before turning to wave her off. I walked into the apartment and got my third nasty surprise of the evening. Jim and Lisa were still awake, drowsily watching TV. I guess I should have called and told her I was fine. She shook herself awake more and got up, "Kansas, where have you been? I've been worried sick about you."

"I just went across the street to the QT and called Wendy. We sat there for awhile, talking." I felt a little guilty because we had made a pact to always call and tell each other where we were if it was late or we were expected home. A year earlier at the exit ramp from the highway where we lived, a young woman went missing after she was driving home from the bar. All they found was her car until a few months later. Then they found her body. So, we always tried to practice safety. You never knew in this big city who you might meet. "Sorry."

"Well, I think we should talk." Jim was sitting in the chair again and paying extra attention.

I didn't really want to talk, "What's there to talk about? You already moved Jim in. Done deal. I'm going to start looking for a place to live and you and Jim can have the apartment."

"How are you going to do that? You don't have any money saved or a car. We still have nine months left on the lease. Why don't we sit down tomorrow and figure out how we can do this, okay? You don't have to do anything in a hurry."

She had obviously forgotten one part of our problem earlier. I turned and looked at Jim and then back at Lisa. She got the hint and turned to Jim, "Don't you have something to say?" She was giving him the "evil eye".

"Sorry." He mumbled around a mouthful of left over twinky. You know, as much as this guy ate, you'd think he'd be a blimp, but he was skinny for all that.

"Jim!" Lisa was getting agitated.

He put down his twinky wrapper and swallowed the last bite. I was hanging my jacket up. I was so ready just to leave the room and go to mine where I could be alone and miserable. Alone. He had walked over to where we were standing and I was eyeing him warily. I did not trust men who threatened to hit women. If I thought he had been an asshole before, he had definitely went down from an asshole I could barely tolerate to an asshole I wouldn't mind shoving off a cliff if the opportunity presented itself. "I'm sorry, Kansas. You know I'd never hit you. I just got angry because you were yelling at Lisa."

How many times have women heard that line before? "I'd never hit you. I'd never hurt you." I might have been living in my own world, but the real world was never far away. I'd had the unfortunate pleasure of knowing one or two people that had heard those kind of words before. I didn't trust him any further than I could throw him. And, frankly, I wasn't giving an inch since I felt very much like the injured party.

"Fine. Apology accepted. But I'm not forgetting. Let's all get a few things straight. If we're doing something concerning this apartment or something that is going to effect the others, we need to talk about it first, not just do it. Second, if Lisa and I are having an argument, it's between Lisa and I, not you. We've known each other for five years and we don't need your two cents. We'll figure it out fine. In return, I'll be happy to do the same for you," well, that was kind of a lie, but I didn't know it at the time, "Last, don't hit me. Don't even act like you are going to hit me. Don't act like you are going to do it to Lisa either because I WILL have you arrested. I don't give a damn who you are. Are we clear?"

His eyebrows had drawn together during my little speech, but I was feeling my cheerios right then. These two had been the perpetrators, not me and it was a good time to get the situation straight while they still felt like they had done something wrong. Tomorrow might be a different story. Jim finally muttered, "Yeah."

"Great. Now, if you two don't mind, I'm tired and I'm going to bed." I marched into my room and shut the door. Not too firmly. It was 5:30 in the morning. I put on my Troy Aikman football jersey and gym shorts Lisa had gotten me at Christmas. They were my pajamas. Then I laid down on the big creaky iron bedstead, thinking about what I was going to do.

I wanted to get my own place, but Lisa was right. I didn't have any money saved nor a car. We had nine months left on the lease, though I was sure I could write a letter and give 30 days notice to break it. Of course, then Lisa would have to re-sign a lease in her own name.

Thoughts kept swirling around in my head as I finally drifted off to sleep.

The world was full of nasty little surprises.

White Town

Just tell me what you've got to say to me,
I've been waiting for so long to hear the truth,
It comes as no surprise at all you see,
So cut the crap and tell me that we're through.
Now I know your heart, I know your mind,
You don't even know you're being unkind,
So much for all your highbrow Marxist ways,
Just use me up and then you walk away,
Boy you can't play me that way.
Well I guess what you say is true,
I could never be the right kind of girl for you,
I could never be your woman.
When I saw my best friend yesterday,
She said she never liked you from the start,
Well me, I wish that I could claim the same,
But you always knew you held my heart.
And you're such a charming handsome man,
Now I think I finally understand,
Is it in your genes?, I don't know,
But I'll soon find out, that's for sure,
Why did you play me this way?.
Well I guess what you say is true,
I could never be the right kind of girl for you,
I could never be your woman.
Well I guess what they say is true,
I could never spend my life with a man like you,
I could never be your woman.

Summary only...

Update: Still here...ReadingKnow Thine Enemy

Well, I got a little writers block again and in between that, somebody sent me a link to an interesting site: Liberals against terrorism. Yes, liberals. Their intent seems to be to claim back some of the classic liberal ideas about freedom and security of the US for the Democrat party. Now don't get your panties in a wad. I actually found some interesting materials on the site.

I don't know if you need to register to get to these pages, but, which ever way, I highly suggest reading this project in which they have two of al-Zawahiris books translated into english. The one I am reading now and is most important to our fight against the radical tenets of Islam is called Knights under the prophets banner. This link takes you to the first section. There is a table of additional sections for the book including some analysis. I highly suggest that you read it if you are interested in the mind of a brilliant, ideological madman who sounds about as sane as the next person except he believes he has been at war with the United States for over 40 years, the United States plans for the expansion of Israel, the United States is a slave to the Zionist state and the United States is planning to destroy Islam.

When you read the book, you'll understand why I say he sounds sane and that this view is what compells so many young men to join the jihad, even in the face of near destruction and utter failure of the cause, time and again.

If you are unable to read it from that link, go to FAS: Ayman

Read it and understand the enemy, how his views and strategies in a pre 9/11 world exactly plays out in our current situation.

The Folks at Liberals against terrorism are looking for input on alternative approaches to combatting terrorism. Or, you can read it and we can have a discussion here.

An extract:

"It was then God's will, may He be praised and Whom we thank for the
good and the bad that befalls us, that I should spend three years in an
Egyptian jail that ended in late 1984 but, because of certain private
circumstances, I was unable to return to the arena of Afghan jihad until
mid-1986."

"During my contacts and dealings with those who worked in that arena, several vitally important facts became clear to me and it is necessary to mention them here:

"1. A jihadist movement needs an arena that would act like an incubator where its seeds would grow and where it can acquire practical experience in combat, politics, and organizational matters. The brother martyr-for this is how we think of him-Abu-Ubaydah al-Banshiri, may he rest in peace, used to say: 'It is as if 100 years have been added to my life in Afghanistan.'" {Al-Banshiri drowned in Lake Victoria in 1996.)"

"2. The Muslim youths in Afghanistan waged the war to liberate Muslim land under purely Islamic slogans, a very vital matter, for many of the liberation battles in our Muslim world had used composite slogans, that mixed nationalism with Islam and, indeed, sometimes caused Islam to intermingle with leftist, communist slogans. This produced a schism in the thinking of the Muslim young men between their Islamic jihadist ideology that should rest on pure loyalty to God's religion, and its
practical implementation."

"The Palestine issue is the best example of these intermingled slogans and beliefs under the influence of the idea of allying oneself with the devil for the sake of liberating Palestine. They allied themselves with the devil, but lost Palestine."

Al-Zawahiri says: "Another important issue is the fact that these battles that were waged under non-Muslim banners or under mixed banners caused the dividing lines between friends and enemies to become blurred. The Muslim youths began to have doubts about who was the enemy. Was it the foreign enemy that occupied Muslim territory, or was it the domestic enemy that prohibited government by Islamic shari'ah, repressed the Muslims, and disseminated immorality under the slogans of
progressiveness, liberty, nationalism, and liberation. This situation led the homeland to the brink of the abyss of domestic ruin and surrender to the foreign enemy, exactly like the current situation of the majority of our [Arab] countries under the aegis of the new world order."

Frankly, he reminds me of Rommel who, in writing his memoirs, gave Patton the information and impetus necessary to defeat him.

Read it if you haven't already.

Summary only...

The 2nd Amendment The Right To Bare Arms vs. Crime Rates

Kender at Kender's Musings had posted a few days ago about contacting the ACLU about the protection of the 2nd Amendment.

Linked to the title is the story of San Francisco wanting to ban handguns in the city.

The day this story broke I called the Southern California chapter of the ACLU and, in a voicemail, asked them to march straight up there and sue the hell out of S.F. for being ballsy enough to try to steal our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I really didn't expect a return call.

Imagine my surprise when they did indeed call me back.

Go over and read the rest of his conversation.

On his post, several commenters, both pro and anti-gun control, posted comments. The "pro-gun control" folks seemed to focus on the crime rate and how the drop in crime was related to the instituted waiting periods. Others talked about how the law was "ancient history" and didn't necessarily apply to our current world.

I decided to jump into the discussion as well as look up some data on the subject and it has engendered a slow, but thoughtful discourse with one of Kender's commenters.

I'm posting the conversation here, but, if you are interested in the continuing conversation, you should be sure to check back at Kender's place or feel free to jump in with your own thoughts, here or over there.

For the entire conversation to date, click on the link below to the inner sanctum.


Kat said...
Let me jump in here.

First of all, the second amendment was not made the second amendment so that we could bear arms and protect our property and persons from common criminals (ie, theft, robbery, car jackings, attempted murder or assault, etc). That is, as they say, a side benefit.

The purpose of the second amendment and why it was the second amendment as apposed to the tenth, is to protect ourselves and property from theft and assault BY THE GOVERNMENT or any other entity, country, force that seeks to take away all those other rights outlined in the constitution and additional amendments thereof.

Actually, the first rights that the founding fathers outlined were the "unwritten rights" outlined in the declaration of independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
***************************

The preamble of the constitution goes further to indicate the general purpose of the constitution and by law, the amendments thereof:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
****************************************

Furthermore, the government of the United States is not just based on a federal repulic and representative government. The government was set up to provide redundancy and/or checks and balances on the system.

You are familiar with the three main bodies of government that provide checks and balances against each other: The executive, legislative and Judicial branches; each with their own powers and abilities to "check and balance" the other.

However, the founding fathers understood that, even in such a system, the government entities alone could not be trusted to provide checks and balances against each other for the common good of the people. That still gave too much power to the government. So they insured that a fourth "check and balance" was in place: the individual citizen.

That's right, we are the last "check" in our redundant system of government.

That check is not provided by the right to vote. While that right gives us the ability to elect our representative government, the founding fathers understood that that right could be taken away as they had experienced the abolishment of their own parliaments and councils by the British government as well as their right to representation in the British parliament.

That check is not provided by the right to free speech as given in the first amendment. While that right gives us the ability to protest our government and verbalize our demands, the founding fathers understood that right could be taken away as they had experienced imprisonment for doing just such a thing. You may recall that certain "pamphlateers" lived, worked and printed underground documents for years, fearing for their personal freedom and possible execution for crimes against the state.

No, the final check and balance in the entire system is the ability of the individual citizen to change the government, by force and through taking up arms, if necessary and to protect our persons and property from abuse by the government or other entity.

The left's desire to frame this argument as a safety issue or a program to reduce crime is a strawman argument. Anyone who wishes to argue the 2nd amendment should never stoop to their argument, but stay on the constitution and the guarantee of freedom.

Once you get down to trying to compare statistics about crime rates, you have already lost the argument and the point of the 2nd amendment. That point is the protection of freedom and our rights as outlined in the constitution, not the crime rate.

Being a person that once thought, "What is the harm if we restrict certain guns, or guns from certain areas? Who does it hurt?"

I'll tell you who it hurts, it hurts the very people that the left claims they are protecting from harm because they remove our ultimate ability to protect the key lynchpen, the individual, from the checks and balance system of our government.

Now, what the left or feel goods would like you to believe is that our system of government, the three branches with their checks and balances, are so entrenched and that our military is so full of fine upstanding citizens, that we really don't have to worry about that final check because we have other ways of stopping it. And, everybody who runs for government is a fine upstanding citizen that they would never contemplate harming our way of life or taking away our liberties. Therefore, we should not feel uncomfortable about giving a little (or a lot) on this one right.

These are the same people that will tell you that the PATRIOT ACT and any other number of laws are infringing on our rights as private citizens.

Now, I ask you, which is it? The government would never do such a thing so we don't need to keep the 2nd amendment intact and protect our rights? Or, they will, can, and have enacted laws on a regular basis that do infringe on our rights and we need to protect against them?

If anyone thinks for one minute that all three of our government branches could not be duped or corrupted at the same time and that they are all we need, you should think again. Also, reliance on a citizen military to take up arms on our behalf is equally foolish. Please look around the world to the armies full of citizens of their country have either been induced to take sides with the government in question or split with some protecting and some joining the citizens?

Lithuania? Ukraine? Bosnia?

I will tell you that I was not a gun owner all my life, thought I have owned one for the past year. However, the thing that actually re-enforced in my mind my need to protect the 2nd amendment at all costs was the last election.

When the democrat party demanded UN observers and then dispatched 10k lawyers in preparation to contest the vote, I understood right then that at any time in the future, a political party or leader could pull off what amounts to a bloodless coup by using the very system we protect against us.

Whether that was the purpose of these last actions, I don't know and don't care. What I do care about is what it represents. That is the possibility that my vote, my free speech will not protect me. It is me and my gun and other free citizens with theirs that is the last check in this whole system that does it.

Any township, city, county, state or federal government that interferes with or enacts laws contrary to the constitution and amendments thereof, is breaking the law of the land and it should be declared illegal and unconstitutional. Any court that upholds such a ban should be dismantled into little pieces for their complicity in the matter because they would have forfeited their right to interpret laws and actions that apply under the very laws that they violated.

Don't talk about crime and statistics. Talk about your rights and protection thereof.

6:57 AM

KraftyOne said...
Kat - I wish I lived in reality, in the same world that you appear to live in in your mind. In your mind, you appear to live in a world where the government's technology is not so vastly superior as to make your measly handgun pathetic. Perhaps you don't own a handgun. Maybe you own a shotgun or a semi or fully automatic gun. What is your plan when the tanks start rolling down the street? Do you have a bazooka? Maybe you should look into getting one...

In a few years (shorter perhaps?) they won't even have to kill you if you start getting a little uppity:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/wirq319.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/19/ixworld.html

(I read about that first on CNN or something, but couldn't find that same article again. The technology is the point though)

So, maybe you think you could take out the truck with the ADS system on it with your bazooka? Soon they will be able to do this from the air:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6182817/

Perhaps we should each have our own SAM unit in our backyard. You know - just in case we have to defend ourselves from our own government.

The truth is, in a war between the government and the citizen, we already lost before it has ever came to pass...and, its only getting worse.

So, what is the solution? Where do we find our balance? It seems that no access is not the answer. It seems that full access is not a good solution either.

Kat, I truly wish we still lived in the times when everyone pretty much had equal access to equal technology. Our founding fathers, while brilliant people, could not have imagined or planned for the kind of weapons we now have available. I don't know what the answer is, but ignoring the threat of violent crime and saying that the dialog does not need to take place because you shouldn't "talk about crime and statistics. Talk about your rights and protection thereof." is living in a different world than the one the rest of us have to live in.

10:14 AM
Kat said...
Krafty,

I am aware of the governments technology and advancements in non-lethal weaponry. My family is both law enforcement and military. Non-lethal weapons and explorations of the same. Non-lethal weaponry has been available for sometime (ie, bean bag shotguns, mace, foam, water cannon, you name it, it's been tried or being tried). Other technology is based on control. In otherwords, who has control of a weapon and operates it.

Before I go there, let's talk about the founding fathers and what they may or may not have imagined in their time. First, most of them were fairly well educated. DaVinci's drawings and other improvements to weaponry, just in their time, probably seemed amazingly advanced (Benjamin Franklin did some amazing things and that includes some inventions re: weapons). It hadn't been that long before the flintlock that men were using matchlocks (a burning fuse that could be affected by weather and an open powder pan that was constantly in danger of getting wet, not to mention the techniques for storing powder in the first place that could fall pray to weather and bad storage making it unusable). The flintlock gave the owner of such advanced technology the ability to shoot, even in the worst of weather.

Further, the rifled barrel (ie, rifles) far outgunned, out distanced and out accurately beat the smooth bore musket. Let's not forget the improvements to the cannon which also sported knew barrels and the ability to fire certain ordinance.

In the revolutionary war, our founding fathers were outgunned, out manned and out trained. If they were lucky, the men who brought their arms with them had the nice new fangled rifle barrel that had accuracy up to 300 yards or more compared to the smooth barrel which was lucky to be accurate at 100, which is what most of the boys had brought with them from their farms. Ancient arms of their fathers or grandfathers handed down.

Cannon in the beginning was nearly non-existant and was largely those pieces we had commandeered during the french and indian wars. In short, they were in short supply, crappy and not nearly as accurate as the cannon the British brought. Only after several years of fighting did we have sufficient foundaries to build our own and sufficient funds to buy them from other countries. In that time, the rebellion survived.

Next, they had a Navy. We had something we called a navy but largely consisted of a couple of frigates and a bunch of other smaller and less defendable (actually, make shift, strapping some cannons on a platform/ship that was never meant to be a weapon), many of which we added only after commandeering them in battle or from captured ports. You ever hear of "ships of the line"? That is the term for very big, very capable British ships of that period. They could move up and down our coast at will, dropping men and supplies, bombarding our forts or other areas, even coming up the rivers as far as they could (think West Point and Why Benedict Arnold gave it up).

These rifles, cannons and ships were the fully automatic rifles, the tanks and the F16s of their times.

AND, the british military was a trained, professional force with VETERANS of previous wars leading and serving.

What armed insurgencies do (see Iraq, but bigger and better organized) is take opportunities to destroy or capture these same weapons systems that you talk about. Armed insurgencies that are big enough can mount a very real offensive against an organized and professional military using hit and run tactics (see also Iraq, Indian Wars Circa 1850-1890, the revolution, Quantrails raiders, Jeb Stewarts cavalry, etc, etc, etc)

If the will is strong enough, the support is strong enough, the materials ready and able to be obtained, and tactics are suitable, an armed insurgency could overtake the very well armed oppressors. It would take time, but it would happen.

Further, while I comment on the potential for the military to be used by a rogue government against us, it is unlikely that all elements of the military would fall in line, thus giving us the advantage of having some of these very same technologically advanced weapons at our disposal should the need arise.

Now, I am by no means advocating taking out the government today. We are talking about the potential for a real Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam or slightly lesser version but no less evil, taking power here or the potential for invasion from a foreign country (only a few possibilities exist today without the USSR, but there are some potentials).

Let's also talk about the possibility that on 9/11 or another day similar, the central powers of this country were devastated in an attack that was capable of taking out the Pentagon, congress and the white house. The beauty of the redundancy of our federalist and republic representative government is that we could fairly quickly establish new heads and representatives. However, things would be a bit chaotic for a brief while, until we re-organized.

The individual as a part of that redundancy becomes very important. First to hold those who would seek power at that time accountable for their actions. A well armed citizenry does not have to own tanks, SAMs or satellites to keep the government honest. Nobody wants to see 50k people marching on their state or federal capital with 50k guns.

This is of course, hypothetical but based in the real world as our fore fathers understood their own situation and as Thomas Paine points out in his pamphlets (and Thomas Jefferson in his writings, I could go on) that governments can and have turned despotic on a moments notice, that people in power learn to love power and often try to keep it at the expense of others.

You ask if I live in the real world. I ask if you live in the same world as I do. I mention only a few of the most notorious tyrannical and maniacal leaders known in the last century, much less the tyrants and kings of the centuries past or the ones yet to come or the ones we have yet to point to and say "tyrant" in this century (think China or North Korea, though we've named them they are yet to be the bogey we confront).

Men and their ambitions do not change just because we advance technologically or pretend we advance sociologically. They don't change just because we establish a type of government we think will last eternity and has some sort of "civilizing effect" on people or convince them that this is the best form of government. Democracies and republics have come and gone in what has been the blink of an eye in history.

Ancient Greece 3200 BC and it's democracies; where are they? The Roman Empire was technically a republic, representative in it's form and highly advanced technology. They were over run by the barbarians. The roman soldier had advanced armor, swords, spears, shields, catapults and ballistas (google if confused; these would be equal to missiles and cannon and airborne weaponry) and finally incorporated cavalry (tanks of thier times). They were a professional army and well trained and well kept.

The barbarians over came them with simple shields, swords that were not as advanced and they did not have catapults and ballistas until they stole them after a campaign.

In short, no government system is immune to corruption. No government nor army is incapable of being defeated. No technology so great that it cannot be brought low by the simplest man with a sling shot (or a pair of wire cutters).

Here in the real world, there are things bigger and scarier than a man who might be considering breaking into my house tonight and doing me harm. He would be but one and I would have the equal ability to defend myself against him.

Alone, with only me and my one pistol, I could do little if anything to effect the change of government or defend against it's inroads on my civil liberties. Together, with me and 50k to 1 million like minded individuals with pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles and semi automatic rifles, could make the government shit itself in short order; tanks, airplanes and rockets be damned.

That's 1 million people. Not even 1% of our population. Imagine if half of the half of our society that was above the age of 18 and felt the same and was armed could do? That's 75 million people.

So yes, the 2nd amendment still has its place in our society, has its purposes and yes, the founding fathers understood this implicitly and planned for it to be used for centuries upon centuries, regardless of technology or advancement because they understood the nature of man.

It is also why they argued for this pluralistic, redundant form of government down from the federal, to the state to the county, city and the citizen. Why they argued for small government and originally intended for a small military for defense. That is to insure that at every level, the ability to form and organize beyond the the federal level to overcome or defend, is insured and enshrined in our constitution.

It was not about crime nor crime rates. even in the revolutionary period men argued, shot and killed each other, stabbed and did atrocious things. Do you think they were overly concerned with this while writing the constitution? No. It was for and remains for the preservation of freedoms.

In the real world, the lack of guns of any form will not stop a man from doing harm to his fellow man. He'd just find another way to accomplish it, like knives or stones or his bare hands or any weapon that comes handy (we recently had two people beaten to death with a tire iron in our fairly quiet city).

So yes, I live in the real world. We're not talking flights of fancy nor lofty ideas that don't apply. History has kindly shown us the error of such judgements. Countries and governments rise and fall as we write here.

The real world is beyond the confines of one city limit and that real world can and will invade those city limits whenever it desires.

So we should always be prepared and not allow the potential for a few (and it is a few) to be harmed in the course of following the second amendment to keep us from ensuring that the majority are protected. Taking away the rights of millions and the ability to defend them because several thousand have been harmed by a weapon is not only statistically insupportable, it is the first voluntary step towards the demise of this nation and our freedoms.

You ask about the one gun or the rifle against a tank. What will you do if you have none? Will you become the students in Tianneman square facing a tank with your lunch bucket?

7:44 PM
KraftyOne said...
Kat,

You made some very nice, well-written points there. I also appreciate the cordial tone.

However, most of your post seems dedicated to arguing against a point I did not make. At no point did I say that we should not have guns. Actually I've made my position on guns known a few times at different places in this blog. (In a quick, incomplete nutshell: better background checks, required training prior to ownership, re-evaluation of age requirements, etc.)

My point was that crime needs to be a part of the national dialogue concerning guns. It cannot be ignored. It is this dialogue that has led to some of the restrictions that we have today (7 day waiting period, background checks etc.). These restrictions do not stop most people from arming themselves - either for protection or sport - but they do cut down on violent crime. Perhaps you have been fortunate not to lose anyone you know to a violent crime. Perhaps you have and this is one reason you own a gun yourself. I don't know, but I'm inclined, based on your arguments, to think the former is the case. I would think that if such a thing had happened to your best friend, your significant other or your child, you would not be discounting the need to talk about how crime is related to guns and what precautions should be taken. If we can still maintain our rights and yet do so in a smarter way that saves some lives from crime, should we not do so?

Even though I was not saying that we should not have guns, I did want to make one comment on the revolutions. You are correct that many revolutions have succeeded against vastly superior technology. However, both examples that you gave (American Revolution, fall of Roman Empire) were largely successful due to poor supply lines. Imagine if the American Revolution had instead been the English Revolution and it had taken place inside of Great Britain. Would it have succeeded? What if the Roman empire had not been the great sprawling mass that it was and had instead been one very powerful and smallish country (I know, it was what it was because of its size, I'm just saying if it had been same technology difference but not so spread out.). You can give other examples of successful revolutions (French, Russian) but the technology difference was not so great in those examples. You are possibly right that American's could lead a successful revolution if such a need arose, so I will admit to being wrong when I categorically said that we had already lost such a revolution. I do still believe that, due to the technology difference, such a revolution would be more difficult to accomplish than any other in history.


Side note: Yes, I know what catapults and ballistae are. Catapults = big rock throwing thingy. Ballista = oversized crossbows. See, and people say you don’t learn anything from video games… :-)

9:04 AM
Kat said...
Krafty,

Going a bit out of order, let me first answer the question of how I came by a pistol. It was not "for protection" actually, it was by luck, or providence I suppose. I knew someone who needed a computer that had just come into possession of Bersa .380 semi-automatic that did not actually want that, but wanted a hunting rifle. The Bersa is an older model and not worth much in terms of trade for a hunting rifle. When this person was telling me about their need of a computer and I had two, one not being used, and the fact they had this pistol they were going to sell or trade, I offered the computer in trade.

My reasonings were actually that I had wanted to go target shooting with my brother and cousin. Nothing so grandiose as even self protection or rights to protect my freedom.

It was only after this last year of owning it and reviewing purchase of ammunition, licenses to carry, etc that I really paid attention to the laws and what was being done with them. Before of course, they did not impact me.

Reminds me of that little poem written after world war II by a pastor:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

I think it speaks volumes about people's general feelings about laws and government. If it does not impact them then they pay little attention to it until it is too late.

Neither has a family member of mine been killed by such a weapon, however, two have been held up at gun point in their lives (my mom in a restaraunt parking lot for instance and, crazily, she told the kid to get lost because she didn't have anything worth stealing. He must have been new to the "job" because he continued to argue with her until another car pulled up and then he ran). it has not changed my mind at all and would not do so. My concern would be with the criminal that was running around, not the method which he used to perpetrate his act. That is a problem with this whole issue.

Since asked me, might I inquire if you have ever actually been a victim of a crime with a fire arm or had a family member be a victim of a fire arm?

Frankly, I don't think that this is a good place to frame an argument because it implies that people without direct experience cannot have a say in this issue. If that were the case, all public discourse on many weighty matters were dwindle to a dribble.

Now, you may have noticed that no where in the first part of my story did a license, registration or waiting periods come into effect. At any time, I can approach or be approached by a private citizen to purchase a weapon. As long as that person is not moving or advertising more than a certain number of guns or a certain type or selling stolen guns, licenses to sale, waiting periods, etc have no real effect on a person's ability to obtain a gun and are perfectly legal.

In the criminal world, issues like number of guns or a certain type or stolen weapons don't even phase them and certainly not waiting periods or registration.

My father is a 21 year police veteran, retired the last 10 years and I believe he has more experience in the criminal field than many folks who are selling this bill of goods about the waiting periods and registration. In his experience, as I've already noted, when there is a criminal who is intent on owning and using a gun, legal methods of obtaining them don't even register. guns can be "rented" on the street, used in a crime and returned to the "leaser" without any proof that the suspect ever owned one or had access to one.

I think, in short, that based on experience, these laws you point to have had little effect and will have little effect on buying and selling weapons in the criminal element nor on people who can find a weapon at their leisure, even advertised in the local papers.

I refered to the issue in an earlier post as a "feel good" issue, because frankly, you have been sold a bill of goods along with some manipulated data to make you feel good about the prospects of eliminating or decreasing certain crimes through the prospect of gun control via licensing and registration that only effects those who wish to legally buy a new gun or a gun from a shop.

To add to this, the person that wanted a hunting rifle with a scope, my brother sold him his after he purchased a different one from a friend of his who just happened to buy a new one from Wal-mart. So you see, in reality, there is no such thing as effective gun control barring the total elimination of gun sales and making them illegal and even then people will find a way to own them.

England, with it's unarmed constabulatory and it's rise in armed robbery and violent crimes with weapons is a perfect example. Those with the ability to obtain them through illegal means do so regardless of the law.

I purposefully did not respond to the issue of crime rates because, as I've pointed out, it is a moot point in regards to second amendment rights.

Your contention that waiting periods, licensing and registration have no effect on 2nd amendment rights is only partly correct. In effect, they currently have done little to stop the possibility of LEGAL ownership, but have delayed it. This in itself is actually an egregious inroad on these rights. At any given point, with this method of control over sales and ownership, the government could legally suspend legal gun sales in a state of emergency. they have this ability all along.

However, with the registration and licensing aspects and the push for a national database, there are risks involved that can have a damaging effect on the individual citizen, redundancy and the second amendment. I once thought that a friend of mine who was concerned about this national database was over reacting when they exclaimed about the governments ability to identify gun owners and have a ready list at their finger tips. I poo-pooed it because my thoughts were much like yours: 1) crime with a weapon needs some action against it and 2) our form of government would never allow for this to occur. We the citizens wouldn't stand for it. In essence, I told him to take a chill pill.

I don't think that he was over reacting anymore. With the advent of the PATRIOT ACT and laws that allow the government to basically troll public library data bases for people who check out certain books and use this as a means to compile potential "suspects" for the purpose of "preventing" crimes, it came to me that my friend was not far off base in his concern for national databases for gun owners and the use to which it could be put to by the government, even in the course of "public safety". My friend, by the way, told me that these things would come to pass over 10 years ago. and I thought he was a crazy right winger militia wannabe. I have since changed my mind and owe him very deep apologies (although, he might still be a bit crazy, but he was right).

In the course of "public safety", now, not only have we put in place things that impact the second amendment and the first amendment, we have also impacted the fourth amendment:

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.

Parts of the Patriot Act, particularly the ability to search library databases for people who read certain books (and we're not just talking about how to make bombs; we're talking about books on communists, revolutionaries and guerilla warfare, even novels of such, information on religious or other secular groups, etc, that the government has interest in) anything that you and I on any given day may feel inclined to read on a subject and become familiar with, including gun owners groups, books on owning guns, buying guns, etc, can be construed by the government to imply intent and demand a warrant or even begin an ex-parte general investigation into your personal life where any transactions like buying a book about Muslims and Jihad, registring or purchasing a gun and making large bank transfers, taken together, becomes reason enough to investigat you and me.

We no longer have the right under these laws to do as we please and only become subject to prosecution or persecution when we actually commit a crime. Innocent until proven guilty.

The fifth amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


by the very nature of the Patriot act and the gun owners national database, we violate these simple tenets. Nor compelled to give witness against himself. The rules which allow government investigators to do such things as troll databases for people that fit their "profile" based on purchases or reading materials, guns and banking, violates this very tenet as if mine and your actions could be construed on any given day to imply a potential threat to public safety.

That is also the problem with 7 day waiting periods
While you may see no harm in them, they are already implying that we are not "innocent until proven guilty" and some how untrustworthy of owning it but we can be trusted to vote, pay taxes and serve in the military.

The sixth amendment:

and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

When they do their search on a database for potential criminals, who is the witness for the government? What crime would have been committed outside of reading, owning a gun and making large banking transactions that would prompt the government to investigate a person? How is that "cause"?

Ninth amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, no amendment to the constitution (therefore, federal law) can have any ability to deny OR DISPARAGE any other right guaranteed within.

any law that prohibits gun ownership within city, county, state or federal limits, is a denial of the second amendment. Any law , such as registration, licensing, seven day waiting periods, laws against owning certain weapons, DISPARAGE the second amendment, a right granted by the constitution. Laws that give the government ability to review personal choices in reading materials or pull up a list of people that own a gun, even a specific type of gun that has been used in a crime, infringe on our rights.

2. To reduce in esteem or rank.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English disparagen, to degrade,

I'm afraid, my friend Krafty, that phrases like "national dialogue on crime" and talk about public safety are covers for depriving people of their rights, which is why I refused to debate the points, but made the point in my previous post that crime rates and public safety are NOT enough reasons to deny nor DISPARAGE the second amendment.

For the record, I am not a member of the NRA, gun owners group, militia, rightwing political group, or constitutional activist. Neither am I a constitutional scholar nor a lawyer.

What I am is a private citizen who is capable of reading the constitution and laws and has lived in this comfortable life of freedom for many years taking it for granted and little concerned with laws that I felt did not effect me. I took this freedom so much for granted that I assumed that my government, my vote, my free speech would protect me from being violated by my government.

I have been quite wrong and quite blind.

Each day, with each world event and with each law enacted in order to form this "perfect union", I see that we get further and further away from the original intent. We as citizens, in the desparation to "civilize" ourselves, to insure "public safety" have given up a little here and a little there. All in the name of good society.

laws do not create a good society, laws are meant to protect a good society, it is the people within that society that make it good or otherwise.

Now, by no means am I indicating that my government has gone "rogue" and is on the move to cleanse our country of undesirables or has it in their minds that someday they will take away my gun or some other right. At least most of them.

However, we have created a dangerous place for ourselves. We have, in the course of creating our utopia (not to be confused with socialist/communist utopia; but in essence, the utopia of "good society") allowed ourselves to be convinced that these little things that we offer, that we sacrifice, are for the greater good of our society. There are many out there, who like me in the days past, do not pay a lot of attention to the goings on outside of their little lives. At least until those goings on come to them.

By dent of media blitzes, barrages of information such as crime rates, etc, have served to convince a majority of people that this was an epidemic and that we should "give a little" on our rights in order to better institute "good society". Even though we have "representative government" we can still be ruled by a majority that inflicts its desires on its representatives. That majority is largely uneducated and unconcerned about what damage they might do to other civil liberties that do not have an immediate impact on them. Particularly as they are concerned with day to day life and not some theoretical future where their other rights might depend on the very right that they limited or eliminated in the course of "good society" and the "here and now".

It is up to us as citizens who are cognizant of history to remain vigilant on their behalf, however they might find that vigilance annoying or contrary to their current desires for utopia, lest they wake one day to find that their utopia has become hell.

Now, swinging back to crime rates and national dialogues, do you really think that waiting periods, registrations and national databases were the reason that crime fell or had a significant impact on crime? Let us look at the DOJ statistics on crimes with fire arms:

Non fatal crimes with fire arms fell from 1993 of 1.2 million a year, to just over 300k.

Firearms statistics for non-fatality crimes

That seems to be a phenomenal amount, yes? And would support your claims that crime rates have dropped due to this new waiting period and other gun control laws. But, below the diagram is a little disclaimer about the data collection process:

Note: The violent crimes included are rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Source: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Ongoing since 1972 with a redesign in 1993, this survey of households interviews about 75,000 persons age 12 and older in 42,000 households twice each year about their victimizations from crime.

Please note the phrase "redesign in 1993". The year that the crime rates with fire arms seemed to miraculously begin declining as well as the way the survey was performed. They also note a "continuing" redesign of the process.

Percentage of violent crimes with a fire arm:

Percentage of Crimes Related to Fire Arms

In 1993 it was at 11% of all crimes. It decreases drastically (in percentage points it's drastic) from 1993, in the same manner that the first graph indicated until 1999, where it experienced a leveling off with one small bump in 2001, but continues until 2003, level, in which time the waiting period existed. in 2003, it was 7% of the committed crimes).

Conveniently, this statistical graph also has the disclaimer about "redesign" and they don't tell you how many crimes were committed over all to indicate what "7%" would equal to in actual numbers.

how about a longer study of "crimes" since 1973

Gun Crimes since 1973

This graph shows you that the number of fire arms crimes reported to the police in 1973 was appx 370k crimes. This crime rate holds almost steady with a few blips until 1988 where it begins a sharp increase until 1993 at an all time high of 590k(conveniently when they begin to redesign the data gathering) and decreases until 1998-99, back to appx 370k with a blip back to 450k in 2001 and then back again to "leveL" with this comment below:

In 2003, about 67% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 19% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm.

According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2001 about 39% of the deaths that resulted from firearms injuries were homicides, 57% were suicides, 3% were unintentional, and 1% were of undetermined intent.

Suicides are included in this crime rate and are 57% of the crimes recorded. In 1993, according to the data, suicide was 48% of the crimes and climbs all through the data, regardless of the laws enacted.

As a person that routinely deals with statistics and analyzation of data in my regular job, the data miraculous decrease in crime statistics stinks to high heaven. In a GROWING population of 300 mil people (somewhere around 270 mil in 1993), you don't get those kind of decreases in any data, not in poverty, in healthcare, in highschool drop outs, none.

By their comment on the redesign, it is fairly evident that their previous data collection techniques were flawed giving an unreasonably high rate of crime. This could be anything from counting one act of armed robbery where there were ten victims as "ten" as opposed to "one". It could mean, in the solicitation of information during previous surveys, the question sets were predisposed to obtain or construe data in a certain manner. any number of things that prompted them to "redesign" their collection and data analysis.

What happened in 1988 to the justice department that might have precipitated this unusual data pattern?

In 1988, the Regulatory Flexibility Act was passed that required all agencies to present more data and information on programs they were managing (this is also in conjunction with "unfunded mandates reform act"). The DOJ had a rather large overhaul in order to meet this requirement and produce the data required.

What does that mean in relationship to our data and our discussion?

In short, the data was flawed and the collection techniques were flawed. This was pretty convenient for the "gun control" crowd, both the unprecedented highs and the unprecedented decrease. Without disclosing to you or other citizens the fact that the data collection method was redesigned (and of course avoiding the impression that there might have been something wrong with it), they conveniently point to these statistics as proof positive that this thing really works.

Interestingly, the data decline begins to level off around 1999 and remains fairly constant for the last 4 years of data collection until 2003 despite waiting periods. I would hazard a guess that it remains so today with possible little blips and increases what with the craziness of the last election.

But does it indicate that the 7 day period would be effective?

From the bradylaw campaign:

Since the implementation of the Brady Law in February 1994, almost a quarter-million prohibited purchasers have been stopped from buying handguns in gun stores, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Since 1994, gun-related violent crime has been dropping even faster than violent crime overall, and a 1997 study by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence demonstrated a dramatic decrease in interstate gun trafficking since the Brady Law went into effect.

do you know who was barred from purchasing handguns? Do you think that 250k violent criminals were kept from getting a gun? conveniently, they leave out the data for who was stopped from buying a gun. People convicted of non-violent federal offenses (ie felonies), most of which probably had no idea that they were prohibited from purchasing a gun. These non-violent federal offenses include writing checks that totaled more than $1k dollars that bounced, people convicted of tax evasion, defrauding social security (ie, pretending to be disabled or for spousal or other benefits), you name it, white collar, non-violent criminals made up over 70% of those felonious characters kept from buying a gun.

And what about the people who were committing crimes anyway (including suicide an ever increasing rates)?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%In short, waiting periods and national databases and their effectiveness on combatting crime is a farce, perpetrated by the use of false data and by a pretty nifty media campaign.

In 1993, the brady law and three day waiting period was passed with a 90% support nation wide after a media campaign using inflated numbers and what has become known as "scare tactics". the year the brady campaign first kicked off 1985, the crime rate was no higher nor lower than it is today. If it wasn't for the mess of the data, this law would not have existed.

You ask for national debate on crimes and waiting periods. There it is. If the nation really knew this information and the media gave it the attention that it deserves instead of applying their sensationalist crime theories and complete bias, we would not be having this conversation and I would not be explaining to you how crime rates and 2nd amendment rights should be treated as mutually exclusive issues and actually have little or nothing to do with each other beyond the fact that our rights are being violated by the government today in the false name of public safety and good society and we did it to ourselves. We the people, were duped and allowed ourselves to be duped.

That included me because I supported this act on the grounds that the data presented did seem to imply an increased crime rate due to guns and the fact that I had just moved to a city where 15 people a night were injured or killed in gun related incidents. What I did not realize is that I lived in a city with over 1.5 million people and it would stand to reason that the crime rate would be higher just based on population than the far smaller city I came from.

Duped. And in the name of public safety and good society.

What should be on the lips of every person and in national debate is the decline of the rights of private citizens, the protection of their privacy and what it means to the average citizen, not just the prevention of suspected crime and capturing potential criminals. But, the founding fathers understood a few things about people and they wrote it in the declaration of independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Think about that for a minute. You are becoming, through your desire to see good society by what you would call "limited government incursions", complicit in the demise of the rights of you and your fellow citizens. A right that protects all of your other rights.

Once that right is gone or limited in such a fashion that it becomes moot, what other rights will we infringe upon in order to promote good society? Free speech? Maybe we just ban a few words, fine people for cursing, maybe religious speech in public places is outlawed? Maybe books? Harry Potter promotes witch craft, maybe it should be banned? Or we should put limit the amount of violence in television and movies?

We already put ratings on things, how far until we decide that the case for promoting "good society" demands that we put limits on all of these rights?

My last comment tonight because I've written plenty, while I tell you that crime rates and the 2nd amendment are separate issues, the interdependence of all of the rights to exist, without exception, is not a separate issue.

If you are concerned about the PATRIOT ACT and it's possible uses and infringements on people's rights, you should be concerned about the 2nd amendment. If you are concerned about infringements on the right to free speech, you should be concerned about the 2nd amendment. The smallest infringement on one right, even in the name of good society, is the infringement of all rights.

Ben Franklin:

All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged: It is so. It is not so. It is so. It is not so.
*******************************

side note: yes, I agree that revolution would be difficult and I never meant to imply diffrently. No revolution is easy and yes, technology in the hands of the different players would be an issue. Necessity is the mother of all inventions they say and it stands true for revolutions.

Also, glad you know what a ballista and catapult is (I like those games too), it is difficult to know in this format, who knows what and from what place of knowledge they may argue.

Until the next time, good night.

Summary only...