Snowflakes in Hell

I will very seldom post about business stuff on here, but it’s interesting to see my former employer actually turning a profit.  What really gets me interested enough to post is that it seems they want to cash in on the troubelsome practice of civil asset forfeiture:

Separately, Unisys said Wednesday it received a blanket purchase agreement that could allow it to sell $112 million in services to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Management Staff over eight years. The services are to support the staff’s consolidated asset tracking system. The government has already ordered $8 million in services under the agreement.

Boy I’m glad I don’t work for them anymore. Unisys executives have never known a customer so sleazy they wouldn’t deal with them.  I’m glad my labor isn’t going to help the government steal private property more efficiently.

It’s crap like asset forfeiture that makes me laugh at the left when they try to get me to care about the fact that Bush is stomping all over our civil liberties.  Maybe I’ll be able to get worked up about it when the left starts worrying about the civil liberties I’ve already lost because of the War on Drugs.  Sorry, but at the end of the day, I’m a lot more concerned about the government stealing my property without proper due process, than I am about the NSA possibly listening in on phone calls when I call the middle east (which I do oh so regularly, you know).

From Insty, we hear that the Chinese government wants to “purify” the Internet.

But he made it clear that the Communist Party was looking to ensure it keeps control of China’s Internet users, often more interested in salacious pictures, bloodthirsty games and political scandal than Marxist lessons.The party had to “strengthen administration and development of our country’s Internet culture”, Hu told the meeting on Tuesday, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

“Maintain the initiative in opinion on the Internet and raise the level of guidance online,” he said. “We must promote civilized running and use of the Internet and purify the Internet environment.”

Hey, Hu Jintao, you can purify thisyou commie rat. No word yet on whether they’ll get any help in this department from Microsoft, Yahoo, Cisco, or Google.

According to Clifford M. Herman, over at the Seattle Post Intelligencer, bowing down to the NRA is dangerous. Let’s take a look at what he has to say:

The arguments favoring the private ownership of handguns in this country are based on two myths.The first myth is that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees private citizens the right to own handguns.

The fact is this. The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The National Rifle Association has succeeded brilliantly and cynically in convincing the public that the amendment consists only of the part that follows the comma.

You should check your facts, because most of the recent scholarship out on the second amendment has rejected this model and embraced an individual rights view. Even liberal scholars, such as Larry Tribe have embraced an individual rights model of the Second Amendment.

The second myth is that every private citizen needs a handgun to protect his loved ones and property against intrusion by burglars. This is a pernicious untruth. As a longtime trauma surgeon at Harborview Medical Center, the main center for treatment of all kinds of wounds and injuries, I cannot recall a single patient who had been shot by the resident of a private home while attempting to burglarize it. I believe my surgical colleagues would agree with that assessment. It is far more likely that a young boy finds a loaded handgun in his parents’ bedside table and either he or a playmate gets shot while playing with it.

This would be news to Dr. Gary Kleck, criminologist at Florida State University, who’s studies estimate about two and a half million defensive gun uses annually, the vast majority of which do not result in anyone being shot. Most criminals break off the attack when confronted with someone prepared and willing to defend themselves. The truth is there are many of these types of defensive uses around the country every day, if you had ever bothered to look.

Those are the two myths responsible for the ubiquitous presence and use of handguns in Seattle and elsewhere in this country. They attest to the ignorance of our citizens and our laziness in not even reading and learning the history of the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

I’m sorry sir, but it is you who are the lazy and ignorant one, not us. It’s not exactly a good way to persuade folks by claiming that of people who simply don’t agree with you. Honestly, it makes you look like an arrogant prick. Handguns are ubiquitous and present in our country because Americans, whether you accept it or not, have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves and their families. Read what the founders have to say about the subject, and you’ll understand why you are wrong. People aren’t ignorant just because they choose to make the wise decision not to rely on the police, who can’t always be everywhere when some criminal chooses us as his mark.

The obvious truth is that only police and other law-enforcement officials should be allowed to have handguns in this country. Private citizens have no legitimate use or need for them, and they should be barred from possessing them. Period

So do you want to pay to have the police follow me around everywhere? No? Then don’t be so arrogant as to presume to make choices for me when it comes to my own personal security. Stick to medicine doc. Leave the gun subject to the people who actually know what the hell they are talking about.

This is a pretty interesting shotgun.  I didn’t realize if you pistolized a shotgun if qualified as an AOW.  I think because it doesn’t have rifling in the barrel.  This could be good for someone who is in a small house or apartment with tight corners, where a full sized shotgun might be too cumbersome to wield.  Pay your $5 dollar AOW NFA tax, and one can be yours!

I have attracted my first anti-gun person to the site! OK, it’s not Sarah Brady, but it’s a start. Considering how seldom anti-gun people appear in our community, I have to admit a vague admiration for folks brave enough to dive in.

UPDATE: Ooops… looks like WordPress messed up the link.  I responded to the dude.  I try to be nice, since we’re trying to persuade.  I also figure having a few anti-gun types come in to my site might help drive the traffic numbers too ;)   I know gun blog readers love a good debate.  The traffic whore in me would love him to come back!