Cain and Abel and the Internet

Social media has provided a way for society to interact and stay in touch via the internet. I can watch what my friends do as far away as China. Social networks are used a variety of people.  It facilitates a human to human connection across an electric network of computer infrastructure using our existing tele-communications infrastructure. The internet is a smart system designed to route around failure or outages. A blackout might take down a portion of the internet but the service disruption will be localized. The system allows for routing around the damaged region, restoring communication.

It was original envisioned as a military defense project under DARPA. The thought being to aid in homeland defense, particularly in the case of a nuclear attack or disaster, by providing a redundant and self-repairing communication system that could initiate an early recovery.

In the early nineties I utilized BBS both large (GEnie) and small (local). Gaining greater access to the internet when I went to college. But it was while I was at the Coast Guard Academy (now part of the Department of Homeland Security) that I began greater experimentation with the Internet using such services as telnet. Now email and the internet are so much a part of life it’s hard to remember a time without it.

It wasn’t long before the internet became a virtual social venue.  Filled with friendship, jokes, romance….and yes, even character assassination. In fact, though only a world of text characters at the time. The advent of MUDs and MOOs could let someone visit and hang out in a virtual bar dropping shots down the hatch.  And I think by now we’re all familiar with how fired up people can become during internet discussions and debates. How easy it becomes to take ‘pop shots’ at another person and hide behind the veil of anonymity.  The anonymous aspect of the early internet had both it’s advantages and disadvantages.  Anyone could exist without prejudice. No one had to know if you were a man or woman, black or white. The only thing that mattered regarding acceptance was your character online. In many ways, it was the epitome of the dream come true for the like of activists such as Martin Luther King. But it was often easy to take offense or treat someone like they had the plague; to simply attack them because we could not visual their humanity.

The internet is akin to our modern highways, often being referred to as the internet super highway. But it shares aspects more in common with subways and metros like Atlanta’s MARTA service. It’s not all polished, there are red light districts. Even organized crime has found its niche on the internet, with Hackers who break into computer systems to steal information or who write worms that breach security and create zombie PCs or steal credit card information. One should always use a good anti-viral program to protect your personal computer from a wanton virus or infection.  And be extremely cautious with regards to what information you share online or give to internet sites lest you find yourself in the hazardous situation of being a victim to identity theft. One of the best ways to avoid infection is to never open up a suspicious email, especially those with attached files which are often packaged viruses. Not all computer problems are due to viral infection, often the problem can be traced to a memory leak in a software program.

The internet and the concept of an interconnected electronic network has permeated much of our creative art, especially cinema. The Grid, it’s referenced in the TRON movies. Showed how the interconnectedness could pose a security risk. When the Master Control Program attacked the Pentagon computer systems.  The Matrix featured agents, quasi-cops, who manifested as SWAT teams and Secret Service agents. But were really computer programs designed to control and maintain the system.

While the Internet may have started as a U.S. defense project it has grown into an encompassing technology spanning the globe. From Canada to Mexico, to Europe, to the Middle-East to the Far-East the internet has grown into a medium that nearly connects the entire world together.  One might almost say “Where there is light, there is internet.”  Look at a map of the world at night. You’ll see regions that are lit up brightly. These tend to correspond to the hubs of the internet.  Though it even pervades into the more dimly lit areas. One thing that I find interesting about such maps is how you can always find North Korea and South Korea. Go to Asia and find the area where there is a line and below it is very brightly lit and above it dark.  South Korea full of modernization, electricity and internet. North Korea, a realm stuck in the dark age (literally) and without the commonality of the internet.  Such regimes prevent the sharing of knowledge, as such knowledge would like foster rebellion and armed uprising and revolt.

There has been a growing trend amongst some nations to censor the internet, to create a digital border with a digital fence, patrolled by digital police. Preventing those thoughts and ideas which dictatorships have deemed illegal. And yet in many ways, the internet continues to prevail. Even when tyrants have tried to turn it off, ad-hoc systems arose in its place. It becomes the medium for the outbreak of ideas, and facilitates ideas going “viral”. A term that denotes where the sharing of a thought, idea, picture or video is passed from one individual to their friends in such a way that the replication results in a millions viewing the subject.

The internet is a wealth of knowledge. Sites like Wikipedia, which has put an encyclopedia in the home of everyone with an internet enabled computer, all for free. Or Google the massive search engine that finds info fast on nearly any topic.  Want to know how to grow your own tobacco? Google it! Want to know how to handle a toxic chemical spill? Google it! Want to know the real facts about H1N1 Avian influenza? Google it! Need the AMTRAK  schedules…Google can get that too!

The internet has put more information at the fingers than any technology since the printing press. It is likewise, just as disruptive a technology.

This has also led to issues of copyright, piracy, and debates on free and fair use. We’ve seen many sights taken down recently by the Department of Homeland Security. Sometimes with the result of other legitimate sites being taken down in the process. Many question whether this collateral damage method is acceptable.  Most Americans would not accept the police demolishing and entire city block and spraying it down with bullets to raid a single house of a drug dealer. So the question arises, why should it be acceptable to take down 200 websites (virtual homes) to eliminate one bad website? Even more question whether copyright protection should be a role of the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Recently, this came to a head with regards to SOPA/PIPA Acts which would have greatly strengthened the already overly strong hands of copyright law. RIAA and its cohorts had pursued their typical pattern of lobbying and bribery, and the expected results at first seemed to be panning out. SOPA was on its way toward becoming law. That is, until some of the major players of the internet like Google and Wikipedia decided to play the nuclear option.  They threatened to pull their services off the web. Quickly, people became aware of the pending legislation and voiced their opposition. Within a few weeks SOPA/PIPA had lost nearly all their support. When the D-day arrived, it was toned down a bit. Rather than the many websites closing doors for the day, most simply put an alert on all their pages. But the event showed that there were new powers to be and that the lobbying organizations couldn’t take for granted their old ways of bribery. Google, Wikipedia and others had shot dead the SOPA/PIPA Acts. And taught Congress that they could affect people far more greatly than had been realized.

In a lot of ways, this is a good thing. Because it gives a greater voice to the people. Another means for American citizenry to affect their leadership.  And perhaps that’s one of the greatest uses for the internet. We’ve seen the internet play major roles in the election of President Obama, the campaign of Ron Paul, SOPA/PIPA being removed from the table, and in such movements as the Tea Party, OWS and the Arab Spring.  It is providing a means for the populace to unify and rise up in voicing their opposition and opinions in a peaceful manner. Which is a very good thing, because so long as the citizenry has an effective peaceful means of enacting the change society needs. Then citizenry will have no need to resort to firearms and bloodshed.

Where will the internet go from here? Recently the term cloud computing was coined. A term to describe clusters of data centers housed in large facilities which offer a service very akin to the mainframes of yesteryear. Just far more dynamic.  I expect we’ll see an explosion of growth from the greater connectivity of the wireless revolution combined with the storage and processing resources of cloud computing.  Such a pairing would allow one to access the power of a super computer in the mere Palm (okay, now days the iPhone) of their hand.  So long as the government doesn’t decide to play Cain to our Abel, the future is bright for innovation and new ideas to germinate from the breeding ground that the internet fosters.

Sky is the limit!

…or maybe not?  We’ve seen internet enabled devices take to the air to aid pilots in their flights. In fact the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) just approved iPads for use in the cockpit. And even beyond that, internet has enabled astronauts on the space station to communicate with people here on the earth below.  So perhaps even the sky is not a limit.



Huh what? Where did this come from? Why a dialogue on the internet?  Recently, on Slashdot there was a discussion of reports regarding what words and/or phrases (list here) the Department of Homeland Security in monitoring on social networks.

The above essay, while not using every word or phrase on the list,  goes on to utilize a fairly large number of them.

Primary Talk: Why America is Treading on Questionable Ground

American liberty is founded on the right to vote, the ability to remove our leaders and replace them with new ones. It is the gift that our Founding Fathers purchased for us with their sacrifice. It’s a beautiful gift…

A few years ago I had the pleasure to participate in an Appleseed Project event. It was a blast, we learned marksmanship, history, camradery….but the pinnacle of the weekend was a reminder about how we don’t need to have another revolution because our Founding Fathers provided us with a system that allowed for change.

There is a group, often referred to as the 3%, who believe the system is broke and there is no other choice but to enact change, by force if necessary.  The moniker is taking from the fact that during the Revolutionary war the active forces in the field fighting the tyranny of England never exceeded 3% of the colonial population.

I myself, tend to agree with the philosophy that so long as there is a means to enact change, the “trump card” option of force need never be used.

But what happens, if a large enough portion of the voter base begins to feel disenfranchised?  Even more of a question…what happens, if they are right in their beliefs that their ability to affect change is being negated?

That is a scary question… but it’s one that I feel will become more visible unless things change in our election process.

Presently, we have a system of primaries occurring, in which a tremendous amount of FAIL and fraud is occurring.  We have a candidate whom the establishment of the party has chosen, and has worked hard to see become the nominee (Romney).  While that candidate will likely become the nominee, it has been far from the “sweep” the establishment both wanted and expected, and arguably manipulated for.

Besides the media, which has repeatedly been calling for Romney in shocking fail after fail. Has there been more at hand?

We have seen a number of elections/caucuses  end with disturbing results. And it’s fairly well understood that the party leadership of the Republicans want at all cost not to see Ron Paul win.  Now I am not saying that Ron Paul would have necessarily won the elections in which questionable events have occurred.  What I am simply saying is a tremendous number of issues have arisen,  and some with very peculiar aspects. These incidents will lead to a growing feeling of disenfranchisement. That the system is merely rigged and no more than a circus and pony show.

Iowa, numerous irregularities, differences from polls, 137 precincts with irregularities, 8 precincts not reported (many of which gave no votes for Romney in 2008).  Oh, and let’s not forget moving to a secret location to count ballots.   How atrocious is Iowa’s results?  So bad, they’ll never be able to report a true winner. This is a state for which Ron Paul had a very strong position.

Nevada, once again a caucus which had bizarre behavior. High amount of precincts reported, and then suddenly a two day wait. In Ron Paul campaign’s case, it was one for which many Ron Paul supporters expected a strong result. And some feel by the fact that Ron Paul had increased his vote tallies by an avg of 200% -ranging from 85% (in FL, a state he did not campaign in) to 385% over his 2008 performance. Then suddenly in Nevada Ron Paul found himself with a meager 1.5% gain. Perhaps Ron Paul did not grow his support in Nevada (as this blogger would argue ).  But when combined with numerous delays, people complaining that figures were not being reported correctly, voters are sure to question “what just happened?”

Maine, more recently we’ve found ourselves in another similar issue with regards to Maine. Maine also has been having many questionable reports coming out of it. First off, it’s a fairly close race, but was announced for Romney while only 85% of the votes were reported. Second, a county believed to be strongly in support of Ron Paul had their caucus cancelled by a GOP party member on record for their support of Romney. Reports have circulated of individuals who worked the polls claiming the numbers being reported do not match what they reported.

And in many of these races, the votes of certain precincts have been discounted over the fact that extra ballots have been cast.  Many Ron Paul supporters feel that the GOP has engaged in election fraud. And are perhaps sabotaging precincts with strong Ron Paul support by adding irregularities so the votes are not counted.

This may or may not be so. It’s quite possible all those Ron Paul supporters are merely the loonies that the mainstream media likes to make them out to be. And you know what, A LOT OF THEM ARE!

But what it does say is that without a doubt our political system is broken. And that is a very dangerous situation in a democracy.

I understand that some will put forth that political parties are “private entities” and therefore cannot have their practices determined by the government.  I’ll disagree, and I’ll point to laws that have regulated how and what parties can function (laws mostly passed by the main two parties to exclude any alternative parties from competing).

Until you’ve tried to go through the political process of signature petitions, jumping hoops and hurdles, etc; you do not realize how hard it is to work within the system.  The laws governing our politics have essentially made the two party system the de facto system.  As such, I believe that either a) primaries need to come under regulation and observation or b) that the laws governing “major party” status should be prohibited, or at the very least revised.

At the very least, every Republican should be enabled to sue the Republican Party for fraudulent behavior. And be able to have the party penalized for it’s actions be they deliberate or negligent.

Why does this concern me?

Because if we continue to have elections in which the people feel “robbed” of their vote. We will lose the buffer of grace that Democracy provides. When people feel there is no way to enact change within the system, they will look outside of the system to enact change.

This is why I believe one of the #1 issues that should be of concern in the political year of 2012/2013 is primary reform.


Dear Republican Party,

(time to get your act together please)

The Great Property Debate

A rather lively ongoing debate has existed in regards to proposed “Parking Lot” laws. That would protect the keeping of a firearm within a vehicle, even an employer parking lot.

The issue has been debated as one of property rights, and has been very heated as libertarian viewpoints clash.

Premise 1: If a business owner says no guns, and you store a firearm in your vehicle parked in the business’ parking lot – you are clearly violating the business owner’s private property rights.

Is that the case?  Is one violating the other’s property rights in the name of personal rights?  It would seem so. If a store owner posts a sign that reads “NO FIREARMS”, I believe the bringing in of such without authorization to in fact violate the property owner’s rights.  It’s a problem we often see where some gun toter goes off the deep end exclaiming how they have a right to carry a firearm, blah, blah, blah….but that right is a public right. It does not give you the right to trample over a business owner’s property rights. If Walmart states “No Firearms”, that is their right. To disregard such is to violate the sanctity of their private ownership rights.

So from a casual glance, this would seem to be the case. And many have voiced concerns based on this notion.  But I believe this viewpoint to be absolutely and rationally wrong. And stems from a simple fallacy, the failing to account a multi-dimensional existence.

Premise 2:  The vehicle is private property. And therefore not subject to such governance, even upon another’s property.

I am going to endeavor to show why I believe this latter premise to be correct. First off, we need to make some declarative premises before we can make any conclusions. Namely, a) the land is private property and the owner has rights of force on that property, b) a vehicle is private property and the owner has rights of force on that property.

The owner of the property, has a clear right to allow or refuse your vehicle entry.  This is their right.  They can put up a NO TRESSPASSING sign and say “Keep off”. Likewise, they can give you permission to enter their property, or to bring your vehicle.   There is a significant difference between entering a property and bringing one’s vehicle.  If you step upon someone’s land, you are an individual on another person’s property.   But when you bring a vehicle onto someone else’s land, you have brought property onto property.

This creates a very different scenario.  As both pieces of property have exclusive and sole rights of ownership.  The old saying is “You have the right to swing your fist until it impacts someone else’s face.”   The same is true in regards to property. You have the right to your property, until it hit’s another person’s property.

So let’s look at this scenario of parking lot vs car.  If, as the first would advocate, the land owner would have sole authoritarian rights and be able to dictate anything, including what can be inside your vehicle.  He would also be able to take anything from your vehicle as well, after all, it’s on his property. In fact, if the mere presence of a vehicle on his property, made it fall under his domain, he could freely give it to someone else. In fact, this would be true for any property.  The land owner could simply take your cell phone or wallet.  By mere presence on his property.  What is there to stop this?

The fact that it is YOUR property. This is the big deciding factor.  If someone come on my property, I can ask them to leave. But I don’t have the right to their wallet and cell phone.  The same is true regarding a vehicle. The land owner has the right to allow or disallow my vehicle. But they do not have right to my property.

People need to realize we live in a 3-dimensional universe. Their property, ceases when it hits the boundaries of mine. Otherwise, I could slap a NO TRESPASSING sign and shoot down planes flying overhead.  Afterall, they’re flying overhead – that would just be ridiculous.  We all know it. It’s clear there are boundaries to one’s land rights.  And one of those is when it impacts another person’s property.

A property owner can allow a vehicle or not, but it’s based on the vehicle and the owner.  What is inside it my property is of my property, a decision based on that moves dangerously toward one individual searching another’s property without permission.

Now I will concede that I might allow for a “visibility” aspect. One might be able to argue that one can make such demands when said item is clearly visible.  And why might I allow or concede on such a point?  Noise ordinances. We have clearly established that the making of noise can “tresspass” a neighboring individual’s rights.  If I am blasting my ratio at 2 am in the morning it is likely to be deemed inappropriate and an infringement to my neighbor’s rights to a reasonably peaceful and quiet evening.  While not noise, one might argue that visibility is not too much different and if there is a firearm clearly visible in plain sight, that no search or invasion of my property or privacy was done.  The owner might argue the ‘sight of’ has caused distress to himself and/or his other guests. Now the property owner may specifically instruct me to remove my vehicle. Please note the deciding term is “specifically”.

But if a firearm was stored hidden away, under the seat or in the trunk. There is no mean’s for the land owner to find any specificity with in regards to my vehicle. The land owner can decide if they want to allow my vehicle or not. But so long as my firearm, or any other items, are inside my vehicle. They are within MY property.  The land owner merely has the right to allow my property on his or not. They have no say OVER my property, nor over me. Which is why I have no obligation to inform the property owner of the presence of a firearm.  A sign that says “NO FIREARM” or “NO FOOD” on premises or property, hold true on that property. But not in my own property.

Published in: on February 13, 2012 at 4:30 am  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , ,

Losers Keepers, Finders Weepers

Read something this morning that kind of irked me into an off-topic rant:

In May 2007 a marine exploration and salvage company discovered the largest find of sunken treasure in history. Estimated to be worth as much a $500 million.

However, it now looks as if they will lose all their hard work as Spain has claimed ownership and the courts have decided in Spain’s favor.

So let me see if I have my facts straight?

1. Spain believes the treasure to be from the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes.  Though there is no confirmation.

2. It was supposedly on a commercial voyage at the time.

3. The Spain of today is NOT the Spain of the 1800’s. There has been a number of regime change. Spain no longer has a king.

4. Spain did not find the lost ship nor salvage the contents. 

5. Where did the gold and silver in fact come from? Is this really Spain’s or was it the property of South Americans in Puru?  Why would it be in the Americas?
What this comes across to me is a typical “Bigger Begets Better”, Spain is big. Here’s a small little firm. We can’t let them have a 1/2 a billion dollar find. So we’ll grant it to Spain.

Frankly, if I were Odyssey Marine Exploration, I’d be tempted to fly it all on a plane and drop it back into the sea and tell Spain to go get it if they want it. Only thing that’d keep me from doing that is the historical nature of the discovery.

There has been a growing policy against finders of valuables. There was a time that if you found something, you could turn it into the police who would hold it for a period of time to allow someone to claim the lost good. After which time you would receive the item back if no one claimed it.  And while most places require you to turn in goods you’ve found, the policy enacted by most departments is to simply auction it off for their own benefit.

It’s a bad policy, as it discourages people from reporting finds. I am of the opinion, that a far more honest and equitable action regarding the “Black Swan” discovery would be to mandate the find be split 50/50 between the discoverers and original verifiable owners.  But to expect “Black Swan” to turn over the entire treasure to Spain is ridiculous.  It will put an end to efforts of discovery. Such a treasure trove would have helped Odyssey Marine Exploration to launch many more explorations in the future. Purchase new equipment. And lead to even more archeological discovery. 

We are systematically removing the benefit of hardwork from our society.

Imagine you stumble across an old box in the attic of a house you just purchased in Pennsylvania. Inside is a rifle and a note from one Danielle Boone leaving said rifle until he can pick it up later.  You’ve got a verifiable and documentable rifle of Danielle Boone. And suddenly,  the courts say you must turn it over to Danielle Boone’s descendents. Is that equitable?–treasure-dispute/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2
(salvage company’s page on the discovery)

Published in: on February 2, 2012 at 3:50 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Primary Talk: Young chooses old…

Ron Paul repeatedly winning the vote of the younger generations.

Please understand, in no way do I think Ron Paul is the perfect candidate. I have a few issues with his stances, namely, the fact that I am opposed to state rights. I believe individual rights trump both state and Federal and that the point of the two governments is to be in constant opposition to protect the rights of the individual.

That said, the media (& his own party’s) repeated attempts to silence Ron Paul and his message, leads one to be concerned about the system.  Today, CNN casually leaves Ron Paul off the tally listing. I could understand if they simply include Romney and Gingrich. But they included Santorum, who had one win and less delegates than Ron Paul.

But here is the interesting case study. I’ve noticed that election after election that Ron Paul is winning the young vote 29 and under, and a lot of the mid-30’s crowds as well.

What does this say?  Some are finally starting to talk about this trend.

I am of the opinion that Ron Paul is really the 2016 candidate. But he will probably be too old to run at that point.

What do I think is leading to this support?

1. He is the only candidate talking about getting rid of America’s debt. The younger generations understand they’re going to inherit this debt.  Who wants to inherit your parent’s credit card debt. When grandpa says let’s pay it off, I’m with grandpa.

2. He is the only one addressing the issue of the American empire and militarism.  What many criticize him for as “isolationism”, but is in fact merely non-imperial behavior. Ron Paul supports free trade, diplomacy. I think this approach makes greater sense to me. I see how we’ve handled Cuba. 1/2 a century of embargo and zero effect or achievement of goals. I believe the sanctions are the wrong approach. That increasing trade relations would do more to bring down the regime and further change.  We can look to China, which is still no rose garden. But it’s been the introduction to capitalism that has encouraged change, not embargoes.

3. He comes across as not part of the big entrenched government beaucracy. I think this is what a lot liked about Barack Obama as a candidate, they had the hope that he would not be a typical entrenched politician. Many have since become disappointed and disenfranchised with President Obama on these matters.

4. On a number of social issues, Ron Paul’s libertarian approach gains approval of a generation that views the world much differently than it’s predecessors. Most younger people seem to want government out of marriage. Something Ron Paul supports, perhaps for different motivations. But the results are the same.

All of this needs to be noted by the Republican party who is more and more increasingly being seen by the younger voters as an old boys club which is simply concerned about politics and elections, and not the issues. 

I think 2016 and 2020 will have very different platforms to today’s politics. The Republican party has done much to impede Ron Paul. They are failing to grasp that it is not a man, but an ideology. In truth, were the ideology to have a better figurehead than Ron Paul, I believe the primary would already be over. 

Eventually things will change regardless. A nation cannot continue to have $1 trillion deficits without eventually facing the muster.

Published in: on February 1, 2012 at 4:38 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

State of the Bill of Rights

Today a conversation led me to consider the state of our Constitutional Bill of Rights. While the following exhibits much hyperbole for humor’s sake. It’s frightening in the fact in one fashion or another. Here were some rambling thoughts:

First Amendment – Not allowed on public property. Invalidated if you don’t have a press pass.

Second Amendment – Just you try it….especially out of your home state. Partly cloudy. The good news, this is a right currently in recovery. And we’re making good progress toward restoration.

Third Amendment – Woot. Something is still protected for now. At least I don’t have to worry about National Guardsmen sleeping in my daughter’s bed. (Well not for another 15 years or so.)

Fourth Amendment – GPS tracking, infrared monitoring, phone tapping, yeah…this one’s pretty much dead.

Fifth Amendment – Let’s just label him a terrorist (or Ron Paul supporter). And waive his right to a trial.

Sixth Amendment – Let’s see…speedy trial (took me 9 months to get mine for a traffic violation – I won too). Trial by jury, hmm….Wells Fargo just sent me a new arbitration agreement in which I’ve apparently waived that right. This one’s in the gray.

Seventh Amendment – Jury, well… if you’re not getting your due process in 5 & 6….than likely no jury for you.

Eight Amendment – Cruel and unusual punishment, does 2 years of presidential election campaigning count?

Ninth Amendment – Wait was that right specified in the constitution, than no you don’t have it. “What, little girl? You want to sell lemonade! What…no way…not unless you have a $500 license and pay a $50/day vendor fee. Stop crying or I’ll throw your little *bleep* in the slammer.”

Tenth Amendment – What’s not been delegated has been absorbed into the commerce clause. Essentially making anything the Federal government wants; under it’s control.

Let’s not even go into the Congress’ right and responsibility to declare war. That was by-passed with the War Powers Act. Mind you, we haven’t had a War in decades. But we’ve had dozens of wars (if you define a war as an event that utilizes guns and bombs and kills people).

Published in: on December 30, 2011 at 10:03 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,

Cavalry Arms owner pleads guilty!

For those unaware of Cavalry Arms. They manufactured a polymer lower for the AR platform. Providing a very lightweight lower.  They’ve been essentially under-siege by the BATFE for approximately two years.

The owner, Vincent, stated that 90% of the goverment’s original case was dismissed. The final contention is a charge that the owner knowingly sold firearms to an out-of-state resident – in California.

Most of the articles I read online provided little info and declared how such illegal sales are almost always used in crimes, etc.

The following article is one of the only ones I have read that gives any counter-point or details on the matter.

Apparently, the firearms sold to the resident of California were actually stored in Arizona with the firearms dealer.

For those unaware of the situation in California. It has become a little bit ridiculous. Massive restrictions on firearm ownership, approved firearm lists that can limit a purchase based on color, and police officers who believe they should be shooting law abiding citizens for trying to preserve their 2nd Amendment rights.

It’s quite probably that many of the firearms purchased were not on the approved California list. To give you an idea on just how restrictive this list is.  I just googled and found a link to the roster. There are only 1300 approved pistols on the list, a drop in the bucket when compared to the thousands and thousands of different models. To a collector, it’s like saying you can collect the Yankees but not Red Sox baseball cards.

Frankly, I am of the opinion that if a firearm is not allowed to be in your state. You should still have the right to own and store that property where it is legal.  But I am of a lot of opinions that California residents are getting close to justifying a lot of things.

Published in: on February 25, 2010 at 3:41 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

9-12 in Washington D.C.

Today I was in Washington D.C. at the Capitol building. I, my family and a few hundred thousand other Americans were gathered to express our displeasure with the direction our nation has been headed.

Below is a gallery of photos I took.  Media may have describe the Tea Party protest as a couple of thousand gatherers. But as you can see in the photo below, that was just the number waiting in line at the port-a-pottys.


Article in the York Daily Record on the Tea Party (practically an interview with mwah)

Published in: on September 13, 2009 at 6:08 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , ,

Libertarianism explained…

The following is a great explanation of rights, why we have them, and why we have the right to defend them…

Published in: on May 26, 2009 at 7:19 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: ,