A fun dream

I had a dream that I ran away last night. It was interesting because I thought about all my responsibilities, but decided to go somewhere I could get rid of the stress. I would be out in nature: skiing, hiking, biking, camping, and so on. It was nice. Do what you want and the money will follow. It was empowering to think of just dropping everything.

Nature red in tooth and claw

Well, it sometimes happens when I am hunting squirrels in the park that someone says how disgusting it is. Today it was some escapee from a freak show (Lydia the Tattooed lady) who thought it was awful. Michael came to my defence pointing out that it is my nature to hunt. I am an animal and I hunt other animals. For the most part, Michael will keep my tendencies in check, but he sees no problem with my ratting.

While I look cute and fluffy, Chinese Cresteds have been ratters. We killed the rodents on board ships. Rodents are a problem in the city. Those cute squirrels can raise hell if they get in a house. Squirrels are just furry tailed rats.

Michael used to shoot the things when he was a kid living in the country, but now he gives them a fighting chance. Anyway, I am the one chasing the squirrel, not Michael. He allows it since he knows it gives me pleasure. It would give me more pleasure to kill the thing. I mean, this is what I do as part of my nature.

I would kill things to eat if I were in the wild. Just because Michael gives me a bowl of food doesn't get rid of my instinct.

Anyway, I am not sure what to do with these people, especially since they are usually PETA members. You know, the fuckheads who think vermin are cute.

Maybe we can hope they get rabies.

Michael's dream

Bob Dylan's dream is where he was the only person alive after the nuclear war. My dream is that I live in a world like the Survivors, not the thing on these days, but the 1970s BBC series written by Terry Nation (Dr. Who). The concept is that biological warfare has killed off 90% of the world's population courtesy of air travel. The people left over have to create a new society.

Actually, I would prefer a bit more selectivity as to who lives and dies. Maybe a bit more Lathe of Heaven here than Survivors.

Anyway, the premise is interesting. Despite the average US survivialist's dream, The series shows people trying to recreate civilisation, which makes more sense to me. The reality is that hunter gatherer civilisations are nomadic as opposed agrarian socieites which are static. Most civilisation comes from agrarian economies.

I just like the lack of people.

What if?

I just read a piece on how the NRA tries to torpedo any litigation that will come up with a definitive ruling on the Second Amendment. NRA is usually shorthand for the RKBA crowd, especially since it is the most widely known of the groups. Also, the NRA tends to have alienated most gun owners by not serving their interests. But that's another post.

I am musing on the possibility that SCOTUS could surprise the pundits with a collective right ruling on DC v. Heller. Of course, that doesn't make any sense of the rebuttal argument where CJ Roberts and J Scalia grilled Dellinger on gun locks. Dellinger failing to take the point that the Second Amendment merely protects the right of an Article I, Section 8 "militia".

The problem is that the questions could be seen as going two ways.

Whatever, I think that the wrong thing will come from this litigation since there is a desire to appease the interest of the RKBA crowd in the outcome of this decision.

Abortion

It totally bothers me that the US is so obsessed with abortion. While they have no qualms about using deadly force for self-defence, they don't mind bringing unwanted children into the world. Something about a "right to life".

Nevermind that the unborn child is a speculative life.
Nevermind that unwanted children contribute to the world's ills.

Paraphrasing the bumpersticker: if you can't trust a woman with a reproductive choice, how can you trust a person with a firearm?

Anyway, it seems that this fanatic hatred of abortion has led to the blocking of the word abortion from a database used by researchers. The restriction was put in place because of articles from an abortion advocacy magazine available on the site. The issue in question focused on abortion as a human rights issue and profiled abortion rights advocates around the world.

"We are disappointed," Anu Kumar, the executive director of Ipas (an international reproductive rights organization) said, "We know that 40 million abortions take place every year and nearly 20 million of them are unsafe. Women are literally dying while we're dithering about these words."

The problem is that the lives of real, living women are being harmed by a lack of access to abortion. On the other hand, some fanatics are worried about some "unborn" who may not survive term to actual life. What's wrong with this picture? I mean, why can't you pay to raise the children you bring into the world with education, housing, health care, and proper nutrition? No, it's cheaper to put them in prison.

Now, I would tend toward the opposite extreme as far as "reproductive rights" go, given that there are too many people in the world. Most of these people are idiots, in particular, the RKBA crowd. I would reinstitute the "Mississippi appendectomy" which was a clandestine hysterectomy for welfare mothers. While we're at it. We can do something similar with the criminal population and give them forced vasectomies.

Fuck, sterilise the population at large. The wrong people are breeding and the world is full of idiots.

The RKBA crowd don't want laws to protect us from unsafe guns: So, sell them exploding firearms and ammunition. Maybe the RKBA will empirically prove that David Hemenway is correct while killing themselves off. Florida is already seeing a rise in gun crime due to the lax gun laws.

Of course, illegal abortion and legal guns is the sort of screwed up logic I've come to expect from the American public.

Taxes

'Tis the season to have my finances trashed by the government. I don't think that taxes were the issue during the War for Independence in Philadelphia, because they were truly misguided had that been the case. My income is quadruple taxed with School tax, Business privilege Tax (BPT), and net profits tax (NPT).

Business privilege tax conveys the idea that Philadelphia is against business since it is a privilege to conduct it here. BPT taxes both net and gross earnings and then there is another, separate tax on your profits (NPT). Although, both net and gross are taxed at different rates. Still, I am taxed on this two different ways until it feels as if I am being squeezed dry. That's not really something which encourages business to wish to settle here. After all, the entire idea of commerce is to have trade and business.

Anyway, there are rumours that BPT will be eliminated, but that will not occur too soon for me. Also, it seems that there would be more work if business were treated as a right, not a privilege. But treating a gun as a right and work as a privilege is yet another effed up aspect of US society. So, criminals are alllowed the tools to rob, and businessmen are to be robbed both legally and criminally.

Although, the tax situation is criminal in my opinion.

Red or Blue: what's the difference?

Where I come from "Blue" means "conservative" and "Red" is usually some form of collectivist philosophy, such as Socialism or Communism. This colour scheme is true for most of the world.

Of course, the US in its arse backwards way has these reversed. Although, I am not really sure what US parties actually stand for since it appears to be the party of the rich and powerful v. the party of the rich and powerful (republicrats and Demicans). In fact, the parties are terrible at making any real political stands in such topics as gun control, health care, the environment, transportation, education, and pretty much everything in general. That is a major reason nothing seems to get done in this country, other than making a show of electioneering. We have "wedge issues" such as gun control and abortion, which are really non-issues since gun control and abortion should exist and shouldn't be any sort of "wedge".

Actually, I don't understand the progun crowd's disliking abortion since the children aren't alive anyway. They haven't been born, which means that life is speculative. On the other hand, the gun crowd sees no problem in the death toll in the USA. Perhaps, if we ensured that wanted children came into the world, we wouldn't have an issue with crime.

But the ultimate bottom line is the public welfare, which I see neither US party as being very interested in promoting. In fact, I am not very sure of what exactly the US parties are interested in promoting other than havoc.

Another subway beating

There have been three beatings in the el concourse over the past week, one of which was fatal. Now, the RKBA crowd are telling us that this shouldn't happen given the amount of CCW permits on the streets of Philly. Common sense says that the crims are streetwise enough to tell who is carrying and to avoid them. Most books on CCW talk about printing and believe it or not, people act differently if they carry. This is especially true if the person carries at their waist. My preference is for a shoulder holster for a bunch of reasons, preferably with a small gun (Beretta M84).

Maybe the solution isn't concealed carry, but to have the cops sighting rifles down the street the way we did in Ulster. The picture I've attached seems pretty innocuous with the kid looking through the SUIT, but it was SOP for us to point our rifles down the street. Now, maybe we could stop the bullying of innocent bystanders if the miscreants were aware that they would be shot for acting up.

Actually, I like the idea of military patrols on US streets. The US could get the checkpoints the way the British did in Northern Ireland. Going into an area would be consent to search. Additionally, people could be stopped and frisked for weapons. If you are stupid enough to be carrying a weapon on the street, you can be shot by the security forces.

Not a bad idea.

Forget the war on terrorism, let's have a real war on crime here.

Bye Bye Montana!

I've been reading that Montana plans on seceding from the Union if SCOTUS rules that the Second Amendment protects a collective, rather than individual right. The whole idea sounds like it came from the Militia of Montana, which is a pretty pathetic thought. Is Brad Johnson, Montana's secretary of state,such a political whore that he is willing to pander to a group of crazies? Anyway, that is the problem with elected officials in this country is that they are too willing to listen to the loudest constituents rather than the sanest.

On the other hand, the United States is a failed state and has been since the Treaty of Paris ended the War for Independence. I have a longer post on why the independence movement was a bad idea, but that's for a later date. This type of thing is one of the symptoms and they have been happening since Daniel Shays's little uprising. Nay, since the first idiot started screaming for independence on trumped up grounds. Since then, crazies have tried to break from the Union on all levels of scale based on the same silly arguments as the early "patriots".

Fortunately, we are seeing the culmination of my observation that the United States is the richest third world country. Infrastructure is collapsing, the economy is heading toward the shitter, the price of fuel is rising, and so on. Because the "leaders" are more interested in popularity than addressing the issues, the price of fuel will be a real problem for this country.

I see protesters wanting "fair gas prices". To them, that probably means the low prices that the US is used to, rather than the prices the rest of the world pays. It would be funny if the politicians gave the protesters the latter and petrol went to US$10 a gallon! Definitely a tax to pay for repairing and upkeep of the infrastructure. The problem is that the private automobile has been subsidised by low fuel prices and parking. Not to mention that the tax barely covers repairs to the crumbling highways.

Now, what really brought down the Soviet Union wasn't anything the US did with the possible exception of aiding the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which was a bad move. Some mujahadeen later going on to form al-Queda or aid Islamic fundamentalist movements. Funny if by trying to bring down the Sovs, the Septics cause their own demise! But, the point is that what really brought down the Sovs was that foreign banks were bankrolling the state.

Now, the world economy is truly global, which most septics don't grasp. Meaning even if your job hasn't left the country, your real boss may be from overseas. I am not sure what the foreign investment level is in the states, but it's pretty stinking high. And the largest foreign investors in the US are:

THE BRITISH!

So, the US has never really been independent from England, but it has not had the benefits of its ties to Britain since they are economic rather than political. In fact, the relationship between the US and Britain has been purely economic since day one. The unfortunate thing is that we lack British administration and laws, in particular those regarding firearms, since the ninnies decided to make the break.

Anyway, Bye Bye Montana! I wish this pathetic nation a swift demise and swifter return to the breast of Mother England.

I sort of imagine this demise to be like the Battle of Mogadishu where the Malaysian and Pakistani troops come to our rescue.

terms of art

When a lawyer deals with a layman, the layman sometimes doesn't realise that words in law can take different meanings from what the words normally mean. These new meanings are called terms of art. So, that's why the term "people" in the Second Amendment has a different meaning for lawyers and the "people".

Anyway, I was on the phone today with another lawyer who is an expert on gun laws when I learned something I never knew. I mean this guy eats, sleeps, and shits gun laws (and knows about DC v Heller). So, it came out that the term "firearm" in Chapter 61 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes basically means only handguns. Actually from section 6102:

Any pistol or revolver with a barrel length less than 15 inches, any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches or any rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches, or any pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches. The barrel length of a firearm shall be determined by measuring from the muzzle of the barrel to the face of the closed action, bolt or cylinder, whichever is applicable.

Now, 26 inches is pretty dinky for a rifle. Think H&K MP5A3 with the stock closed and you're getting the idea. A Remington 870 has a barrel length of 28 inches.

Where this comes into play is § 6106.1. Carrying loaded weapons other than firearms.

(a) General rule.--Except as provided in Title 34 (relating to game), no person shall carry a loaded pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle, other than a firearm as defined in section 6102 (relating to definitions), in any vehicle. The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons excepted from the requirement of a license to carry firearms under section 6106(b)(1), (2), (5) or (6) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license) nor shall the provisions of this section be construed to permit persons to carry firearms in a vehicle where such conduct is prohibited by section 6106.

Hunh?

So, technically, an AK-47 isn't a firearm under this law which means a permit to carry a firearm isn't valid for a loaded one. On the other hand, I could carry an MP5K since it is less than the lengths mentioned.

Got that?

I've been doing firearms law for 15 years now and this was new to me, but I would keep my rifle unloaded, in a case, and in the car boot. So, I wouldn't have had to worry too much. Unlike my client who had a loaded AK-47 in the backseat of his car near an airport who is in trouble.

Anyway, Some words mean different things to Lawyers from what they mean to the masses. I am a bit disappointed in a lot of commentary on legal topics by people who aren't legally trained as most miss the point. Some words have different meanings in law and you need to be aware of this.

Law is like a game and one needs to know the rules and terminology to properly play the game. You can't go in with notions that are not backed in the law and try to play the game.

So, don't come to me and try to argue when you haven't a background in law and you are saying things which are without basis in the law. It takes a long time to properly learn the law and how to practise it.

Guns in cars

I am reading about how GPS thefts are on the rise, which doesn't come as much of a shock to me having had two stolen from my car last month. The car was in a parking garage which had CCTV. Unfortunately, the CCTV was nonfunctional, but that's another story.

Anyway, the gist is that the thieves spot the tell tale signs of the GPS cradle, such as the suction cup marks, and then break in. They will pull apart your car to find the unit, which is why they found both of mine in the glove box and boot.

The nice thing is that theft from Auto is pretty hard to prosecute since there usually isn't a witness. Or, the witness is from out of state.

So, valuables in cars are something that thieves love.

Now, legislatures are coming up with laws that say that guns can be left inside of cars if one has a CCW permit. What's wrong with that picture? I mean, we have other items (GPS units) which are pulled from cars with ever increasing frequency, but now we are going to put firearms into a place which make them easy targets for thieves.

Of course, the gun lobby claims that illegal guns appear magically from the fairies. The fairies go to the ghetto and turn legal guns into illegal guns. Hey presto. So, nothing to worry about.

But for someone who had two GPS units taken from a car with an alarm (they busted the window with the alarm indicator) in a place which appeared to have CCTV, this sounds like a really bad idea.