This really should not be that big of a deal. It is, after all, the 2nd Amendment to our Bill of Rights found at the very beginning of our Constitution. To me, the big deal is that we let this right slip away in the first place. Shame on all of us.

The above graphic and more info can be found at Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners.

Titled: Scientists slam US plasma weapon

Scientists have reacted angrily to the revelation that the US military is funding development of a weapon intended to deliver an "excrutiating bout of pain" from over a mile away. The "Pulsed Energy Projectile" (PEP) device "fires a laser pulse that generates a burst of expanding plasma when it hits something solid", the New Scientist explains. If you happen to be that something solid, then you get temporarily incapacitated without suffering permanent injury.

People are mad at our military? I've never heard of such a thing. When did this start happening. PEP sounds like a great military weapon. You can incapacitate an enemy with the option not to kill them. I know that in most cases we would rather our enemies be dead then incapacitated but what about in crowd situations where you can not so easily separate the good guys from the bad guys? It makes great sense for that situation as well as many others I can think of.

That's the theory, but pain reasearchers fear that the proposed riot control weapon could be used for torture, and further doubt a solid ethical basis for the research. Andrew Rice, a consultant in pain medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, said: "Even if the use of temporary severe pain can be justified as a restraining measure, which I do not believe it can, the long-term physical and psychological effects are unknown."

Ok I will grant them that we don't know the long-term psychological effects but can we agree that the lasting effects would probably remain better then being dead? No. Well there is just no pleasing some people.

I have heard there is a picture of this weapon somewhere but I haven't found it yet. I'll post it when I do.

I read several Pro Gun Bloggers, a few of which you can find on my Blogroll to the right. I just added one more to my reading list and the Blogroll. The Blog is named "The Ten Ring". The authors describe themselves this way.

A blog by two self-described gun nuts. One who started as a liberal and the other who started as a conservative. We helped each other grow and thrive over the past nine years.

It was a great find and is a great read.

Oh yea, Say Uncle's referral logs are what initially led me to The Ten Ring. I really love the whole Blogging phenomenon. I wonder if it will catch on?

Titled: Blogging ... Blah, Blah, Blah

U.S. News & World Report reported last week that several senior Republican senators — upon hearing that "blogs" had uncovered the Dan Rather scandal, helped to defeat Tom Daschle and pushed for the resignation of CNN executive Eason Jordan — demanded that "blogs" be added to their official Web sites.

Even though, as a Capitol Hill Web consultant told the magazine, most of them hadn't the slightest idea of what a "blog" actually is.

Nor would they be all that happy with all that is said on many of those Blogs. Most of the Conservative Bloggers, at least the ones I read, and I suspect many of the liberal bloggers are more libertarian in their political philosophies. In the last election there were many Conservative Bloggers who endorsed Republican candidates somewhat reluctantly are were not shy about talking about where they differed from various candidates.

To be successful in this arena you have to stand out and being a political party cheerleader is not enough. I cannot think of too many politicians with the political courage to stand by unrestricted political speech when a Blogger they have linked to happens to disagree with them on some issue. I suspect in such a case the politician will suddenly learn a new "Blog" term. A term known as delinking.

It's an amusing story, but the more I read about the weblogging phenomenon from traditional media sources — the more I hear about it from talk show hosts and pundits, and the more triumphalism, tribalism, and group hurt we're starting to see from the "blogosphere" — the more I'm convinced that even "hip" reporters and tech-savvy bloggers themselves don't really "get" blogs any more than those senior Republican senators do.

In truth, "blogs" are nothing more than a relatively new way of distributing information, just as radio, television, newsprint, and conventional Web sites once were. Blogs differ from other media in that they provide links for easy referencing, they're more easily and quickly updated (and, consequently, many times less carefully edited), they allow for more interaction between reader and publisher, and there's virtually no barrier to entry — meaning just about anyone can start his or her own blog. You don't need to win the approval of an editor. You don't need start-up money from a publisher. You don't need a radio tower.

The Blogosphere has given birth to millions of independent self publishers. Instead of a printing press a connection to the internet and some space to fill is all that is required.

I think the Founding Fathers would be proud.

Titled: No Encryption for E-Passports

Despite widespread criticism from security experts that a proposed high-tech upgrade to Americans' passports actually introduces new security risks, the government is declining to encrypt data on new high-tech e-passports, according to proposed new rules published last week.

..... [snip] .....

The new passports will include a radio frequency identification tag, a chip that will store all the information on the data page of the passport, including name, date and place of birth, and a digitized version of the photo passport, according to the proposal in the Federal Register.

..... [snip] .....

The lack of encryption baffles privacy advocates and security researchers, who say the new passports are vulnerable to "skimming," an attack that uses an unauthorized reader to gather information from the RFID chip without the passport owner's knowledge.

The State Department concedes that skimming is a legitimate threat, but says the chips will have a read range of inches, that eavesdropping at border stations would be very conspicuous and that the passports will have a shielding mechanism -- perhaps a foil case or a weave in the cover that will cloak the chip when the passport is closed.

At least they're taking security seriously. Or not.

I was just browsing M-Law's Lawsuit Abuse Watch site and came across these great examples of the term frivolous.

Two Alpena, Michigan men set an arson fire in their store with the hope of collecting insurance money. They admitted that they intended to simply have a small, smokey fire that would damage their inventory, which apparently wasn't selling very well, so they could collect on their insurance policy. However, when the fire spilled over into the adjoining store, the men sued the insurance company. They argued that they set the fire in their own store, but that the fire next door was accidental and therefore they should receive coverage for the damage to the other building. A panel of the state Court of Appeals amazingly reversed the trial court's decision to dismiss this ridiculous case, but the Michigan Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, eventually reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled that the fire "cannot be characterized as an accident

---

According to a Michigan Assistant Attorney General testifying before the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee, frivolous prisoner lawsuits are overburdening state and federal courts. In Case No. 9650302, a prisoner sued the state blaming the food in prison for his flatulence problem. The Attorney General's Office estimates the annual cost of defending the state against frivolous prisoner lawsuits to be several million dollars, all paid for by the state taxpayer

---

A Michigan couple sued the owners of a nearby business claiming that dust, noise and vibrations invaded their property and therefore were trespassing. A jury actually found in their favor, but a Court of Appeals panel overturned the jury's verdict. The Appeals court stated that noise, vibrations and dust are intangible objects and can not be considered as trespassers.

Reform. Please Hurry. They also have a contest for the wackiest warning labels here. My top three favorites are:

1. A label on a baby stroller warns: “Remove child before folding
2. A warning on an electric drill made for carpenters cautions: “This product not intended for use as a dental drill.”
3. A box of birthday cake candles says: “DO NOT use soft wax as ear plugs or for any other function that involves insertion into a body cavity.”

One of the things that has always bothered me about the ACLU, and there are a lot of items on that list, is that they never seem to apply the same passion for the 2nd Amendment as they do the 1st. Well apperently someone from the local ACLU is out to change that (well that is my hope anyway).

Is there a Right to Keep and Bear Arms in either the Federal or Michigan Constitutions? This is a question that will be presented at the Bill of Rights Program, sponsored by the Southwestern Michigan Branch of the ACLU. This program is to help educate the community about the Bill of Rights, the issues involved and merits of the positions on all sides. The March 16th portion of this program, presents our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and would be of interest to Michigan gun owners. Past president of MCRGO, David Felbeck will be one of the participants. You are cordially invited to attend and participate.

Check out the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners web site for more info.

Titled: The Right to Carry. An Awesome Responsibility

From Southwest Michigan's premiere training center comes the self-study book for individuals wanting to meet their legal obligations for training for the renewal of their Michigan Concealed Pistol License. In addition to allowing you to self-study, there is also a suggested course of fire, a multiple choice test, and an option to send that test in for scoring and thereby receive a certificate of completion for your records. Praise for The Right to Carry: An Awesome Responsibility comes from: "The Michigan Concealed Pistol Law has made it possible for thousands of law abiding Michigan residents to safely carry a concealed pistol for self protection.

I applaud the efforts of sportsmen, like Joel Fulton, who have trained so many applicants on the safe handling and proper use of pistols. His course book provides the right emphasis on the need to avoid confrontations, for each licensee to constantly train and become familiar with his or her pistol, and to safely store firearms from children." --Mike Cox, Attorney General of the State of Michigan "The Right to Carry: An Awesome Responsibility by Mr. Joel Fulton is a "must read" for every law-abiding Patriot of the American Constitution. Extensively researched, the author provides with crisp, concise clarity, everything a loyal Michigan Resident must know in exercising his or her 2nd Amendment right.

This is a guidebook your personal library must not be without." --Charlie Bassett, NRA Training Counselor Program Coordinator "Serving as Chairman of the Calhoun County Gun Board in which Joel and Jared Fulton train the majority of their students, the level of excellence with which this book is written comes as no surprise. Students of this book will walk away in the same fashion as students of the Fulton's classes: Prepared and Well-Informed!" --John Hallacy, Calhoun County Prosecutor

If that reads like an editorial review it's because that's exactly what it is. I copied / pasted the whole review from Amazon.com. This is a book I am going to purchase soon. I happen to live in Southwestern Michigan and coincidently am in the process of applying for a concealed pistol license. What timing!

Titled: Gun law had little effect on crime

Police say there's little evidence gun use is up in crimes or that permit holders have prevented violence.
 
Opponents warned of vigilantes run amok, more accidental shootings and road rage escalating to gunfire.

Backers of Michigan's expanded concealed-weapons law talked of thwarted attacks by thugs, reduced crime and personal safety.

Three years of experience in Jackson County and statewide indicate the biggest impact of the July 2001 shall-issue law is peace of mind for some 110,000 people packing heat.

See I told ya. The article claims that there was no positive effect on crime either. However, if you check out the stats you will see that there has been a pretty steady drop in the violent crime rate as CPLs have been widely available in Michigan. I am not saying there is a definite correlation but the numbers are available. You can judge for yourself.

Titled: Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies

While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.

Another non surprise.

Titled: The False Hope of Gun-Free Zones

Few people remember the school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi that took place in October 1997. Fewer people remember how it ended.

This episode came to a close when Pearl High School Assistant Principal Joel Myrick sprinted a quarter mile to retrieve a personal handgun from his car and confronted the shooter who was unwilling to continue the attack against an armed victim.

Myrick parked so far away from the school to keep from violating federal gun free zone statutes. By the time the shooting spree ended, two students lay dead and seven others were wounded. Myrick's heroic defense of the children at his school was sparsely reported, going mostly unnoticed by the establishment media who were unwilling to report that he used a gun to end the mayhem and murder.

They were also unwilling to ask the hard question - how many children died while Myrick sprinted to his car?

Why doesn't anyone in the media ever ask such questions? It's a great question especially when you consider this.

Past instances of mass shootings, and common sense, teach us that when a victim resists with a firearm the violence ends quickly. Arguments claiming armed intervention by citizens leads to higher death tolls do not stand up to scrutiny. Death tolls are demonstrably higher when victims are unable to fight back as compared to cases where an armed victim resists.

It's time to ask how many more people must needlessly die before gun control activists and legislators realize that disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them easy prey to criminals.

I didn't cut and paste the text covering recent events involving the use of firearms in defense. I recommend you follow the link and read the whole thing. One more teaser.

A similar scenario unfolds in nearly every massacre committed with a firearm across the United States. Most take place in what gun-rights activists call victims-zones; areas deemed too dangerous, either by government or a private business, to allow legal firearms.

What gun-control advocates fail to grasp is criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and therefore any attempt to keep them from carrying a gun into a given establishment will fail, often with tragic results.

The goal of legislators nationwide shouldn't be to keep armed law-abiding citizens from bearing arms in restaurants, bars, schools and so forth. It should be to keep criminals with guns from entering such locations.

Posting signs designating an area as "gun free" does not keep criminals from entering with a gun; they invite criminals who know nobody can stop them.

How true. Not ten minutes after I read that article I came across this short editorial from the Review Journal.

EDITORIAL: Gun ban

The only major American city that prohibits private citizens from owning guns is Washington, D.C. -- and we all know our nation's capital has a reputation for being a pastoral, crime-free paradise.

And now the deep thinkers in San Francisco hope to follow suit.

On Tuesday, The Associated Press reports, five of the city's 11 city supervisors submitted a measure to the Department of Elections that would prohibit the ownership, "sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses."

If voters approve the plan in November, residents would have 90 days to turn in their guns. Good luck.

There are some exceptions to the proposal. Law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment" would be free to keep their weapons.

Oh, yes, and so would one more favored class: violent and petty criminals.

Yea. What he said.

Titled: Accidental Firearm-related Fatalities Drop to All-time Low

A report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities continue to decline and are at the lowest level in the history of record keeping. Statistics in the council’s “Injury Facts 2004” reveal a 54 percent decrease over a 10-year period ending in 2003.

Last year, 101,537 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types. Less than one percent, 700, involved firearms. The most common deadly accidents involved motor vehicles, falls and poisonings, claiming 72 percent of all accidental deaths.

“The continuing decline is good news that’s attributable to a number of factors, but certainly the overarching theme is increased awareness of gun safety and responsibility,” said Doug Painter, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearm industry.

The numbers of fatilities have decreased as the number of CPLs and States that allow them have gone up. I, for one, am not surprised.

Some tweaking of the Michigan CPL law.

Introduced by Rep. Gene DeRossett on June 9, 2004, to require concealed weapon licensing board to issue or deny a concealed pistol license (CPL) renewal within 30 days after the application is properly submitted, and if they do not do so, to extend the original license for 180 days or until the renewal is issued or denied, whichever comes first. Also, to waive the fingerprint requirements for CPL renewals, and not charge fees for fingerprints required for a CPL. Referred to the House Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Committee on June 9, 2004. Reported in the House on November 10, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass. Substitute offered in the House on December 2, 2004. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on December 2, 2004. Amendment offered by Rep. Gene DeRossett on December 2, 2004. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on December 2, 2004.

In short the bill requires the CPL board to grant or deny an application within 30 days. It also drops the requirement for a second set of fingerprints during a renewal, which in turn will lower the cost of an application. The latter change will decrease the cost of the CPL by $15.00.

There is a $105 fee both for the original application and for the renewal; this fee includes the cost of fingerprinting. The fee is disbursed as follows: $26 to the county clerk, $15 to the county sheriff, and $64 to the state police. The state police use its disbursement to process fingerprints and reimburse the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its costs. (The FBI charges a $24 fee to conduct a comprehensive national background check.) If fingerprints are taken by the local police agency, the applicant must pay an additional $15 fee. Some people contend that having a set of fingerprints taken for renewal applications is unnecessary because a set has already been taken for the initial license and the applicant's identity can now be established by photo identification. The renewal fee could be reduced if fingerprinting was not required.

Makes sense to me.

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of theSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Find out the answer from the Unabridged Second Amendment via the Second Amendment Sisters. I am not even sure why someone has to go through all this trouble to prove we do, in fact, have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms but there it is.

Recently I bought my first firearm. Before I purchased I had no idea of what to buy so of course I Googled "purchase my first hand gun." There were thousands of sites to choose from and I must of went through about twenty of them. Anyway to make a long story short, based on all my research I settled on a revolver for my first gun. I did so because it seemed safer for a newbie, its ease of use and the reliability factor.

This is what I purchased. A Taurus Model 66 .357 Magnum

 

Sure it may not be as cool looking as some of the semi-automatics out there but I absolutely love my revolver. My only issue with this particular firearm is that it is way too big to conceal. It is however an awesome target shooting pistol. I'm hooked. 

This post was inspired by another blogging revolver enthusiast. Check out her site. It is a great site for 2nd Amendment and self-protection information. 

Titled Rethinking Libertarian Minimalism

That's the proposition I put forward earlier this week on my blog, Miscellaneous Objections, as part of a broader discussion of the future of libertarianism, and it has drawn a number of interesting -- and often heated -- responses.

Questions of foreign policy have always been difficult for those of us who espouse a philosophy of limited government domestically, and they have only grown more difficult, though at the same time more critical, since September 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, instead of reassessing their minimalist instincts when it comes to intervention abroad, many in the institutional centers of the libertarian movement -- principally at the Cato Institute and, to a lesser extent, at Reason magazine -- have remained mired in a pre-9/11 mindset.

Here, I would like to address some of the key arguments people are making against both the need for a coherent (or at least vaguely cohesive) libertarian foreign policy and the premise that one doesn't exist already.

Right after the 2000 election I made up my mind that I would never vote Republican straight ticket again. From that point forward I was going to split my ticket among conservative/libertarian Republicans, like those from the Republican Liberty Caucus or for the Libertarian candidate.

Unfortunately 9/11 happened and that did change everything (for me). After 9/11 many in the Libertarian Party made it clear, to me anyway, that hawkish Libertarians were not welcome. I tried to stick with them for a while anyway by continuing to receive several different email newsletters from several Libertarian Think Tanks or advocate groups. However, I have cancelled or don't read most of those anymore because the anti war rhetoric coming out of the Libertarian camp sounds so much like that coming from the far left.

I still agree with 85% of what Libertarians believe but until they take national security seriously I am going to vote Republican Liberty Caucus or for the most conservative candidate Republican or Democrat.

Apparently not everyone shares my enthusiasm for CCW permits. While I was looking for information concerning crime stats in Michigan since the Shall Carry law was enacted. I ran across this.

May police limit carrying concealed handguns?  No

Michigan - State law forces police chiefs and state sheriffs to give concealed carry permits (CCW) to anyone who can buy a handgun, allowing them to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public (known as “shall issue”). State law allows residents of some other states to carry concealed weapons in this state without informing local police.

Emphasis mine. I wonder if they know this. Our Michigan State Constitution Reads:

Article 1, Section 6 Bearing of arms: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

Sounds like another law, which forces government officials to allow anyone who can purchase a firearm to own one. The horror of it all.

Titled: Primitive party animals

Since the 1976 presidential election, the Democrats have not received more than 50 percent of the popular vote. Most organisms, except for very primitive ones, usually modify their behavior after repeated failure in order to survive.

Much has been written about why the Democrats continue to fail in the polls. But as an economist, I have been particularly struck by how they have failed to learn sound economics, despite all the empirical economic and political evidence of what works and what doesn't.

Let's start with taxes. There is overwhelming evidence our present maximum tax rates on both labor and capital are so high they reduce economic growth, job creation and the general level of wellbeing for Americans.

Despite this, Democrat candidates from Walter Mondale to John Kerry keep proposing higher marginal tax rates on labor and capital. (Note: President Clinton was the exception. He said he would reduce tax rates but then turned around and increased them.) Higher tax rates are not only an economic loser but are also a political loser.

This article is meant to explain why Democrats keep losing elections. It's pretty interesting and I believe the lesson applies to both parties. I have never understood how politicians can have so little knowledge of free market economics. I have no formal education at all but I do understand the basic concepts of supply and demand. I have never seen proof of any politician Republican or Democrat having this basic understanding. I guess Ronald Reagan came pretty close with "trickle down" economics but I was pretty young at the time and don't really remember the specifics.

So far there are a total of 111620 people in Michigan legally able to carry a concealed weapon.

2001 - 2002
Applications Received	62902
Applications Issued		53000
Applications Pending			9072
Applications Denied				830
Licenses Revoked					55
2002 - 2003
Applications Received	29914
Applications Issued		27499
Applications Pending			1871
Applications Denied				514
Licenses Revoked					52
2003 - 2004
Applications Received	35585
Applications Issued		31121
Applications Pending			4152
Applications Denied				312
Licenses Revoked					119
Totals	128401	111620	15095	1656	226

These stats were lifted from the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners, who pulled them from the Michigan.gov site. Another interesting set of statistics that can be found on the Mich.gov site are these (pdf file). Notice that as the number of concealed weapons increased the number of violent crime went down. Imagine that.

I hope to be 111621

Titled: The Leave-Me-Alone Coalition Grows... in Surprising Ways

Republicans have sometimes been the party of federalism, railing in the 1990s about "unfunded mandates" from the federal government making it impossible for states to run their own affairs and complaining that federal involvement in education was ruining local schools.

Unfortunately, the party has been willing to abandon this principle whenever it's convenient -- with President Bush's No Child Left Behind law recently, and for years over the issue of states wanting to legalize medical marijuana.

But now a large number of disenfranchised Democrats seem willing to form a leave-me-alone coalition. They don't want Bush and his theologians deciding whether or not to fund stem-cell research, they want California to step in if the federal government won't. They don't want a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, they want their individual states to decide.

I hope this is the beginning of the end for our two party system. I would love to see the libertarian leaning people in both partys break off and create a viable third party. Maybe the Laissez Faire Party.

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.