Some Ideas To Ponder On

Here is some newspaper articles from The Durango Herald, 1275 Main Ave, Durango, Colorado 81301; A Revolving Legacy, Southwest Colorado residents reveal why guns are important in their lives. Each response circles around freedom and the traditions of the West

http://durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/05/news050814_5.htm

Soap Box Ravings feels that all of those traditions are not necessarily limited to the West.

NRA Files Suit Over Katrina Gun Seizures

In an Associated Press WorldStream article titled "NRA Files Suit Over Katrina Gun Seizures" dated 12/27/07 the following items were presented:

Comments italicized and in bold were added by Soap Box Ravings in an attempt to bring this item back towards the right from the stance of the AP's presentation.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) identified as a "powerful gun lobby organization" has hired private investigators to track down hundreds of gun owners whose firearms were seized (illegally) by New Orleans police after Hurricane Katrina.

The NRA is trying to locate gun owners (those who owned the seized firearms) for a federal lawsuit that the "lobbying group" (NRA) filed against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley over the city's (illegal) seizure of firearms after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.

As the flooded city descended into chaos and looting, authorities said they took guns from abandoned (evacuated) homes and from people trying to take the (legally owned and possessed) guns into shelters or onto evacuation buses in an effort to keep them out of criminals' hands. As the local police were overwhelmed, the National Guard was called in to assist in patrols.

The NRA's lawsuit marks a continuation of the group's efforts to protect Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. The group's influence in the U.S. Congress has been cited by critics as being behind most efforts to block gun law reforms (restrictions).

In the lawsuit, which is set for trial in February, the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation claim the city violated gun owners' right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit says the gun owners were left at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals" after Katrina. (Many New Orleans Police Officers were busy looting the city themselves as shown on national television or they disappeared and did not report for work.)

The NRA says the city seized more than 1,000 guns that were not part of any criminal investigation after the hurricane. Police have said they took only guns that had been stolen or found in abandoned homes. (When Soap Box Ravings was a police officer and was trained in the Fourth Amendment (Search & Seizure) he was trained that you only were allowed to look in areas where the object of the search could be found. In other words when looking for a stolen refrigerator, you would not be looking in someones dresser drawers. Nor would you look there for a missing person).

In April 2006, police made about 700 firearms available for owners to claim if they could present a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number. (In Soap Box Ravings' opinion, this is the type of "after the fact" bureaucratic behavior designed to minimize the return of the illegally seized property and one of the reasons for the lawsuit. Think about it, after a major hurrican and flooding disaster how many of you could come up with a bill of sale or an (unknown type of) affidavit for Gramp's old .38 or his deer rifle?)

In court papers filed Monday, NRA attorneys say investigators have found few of the guns' owners because the storm has scattered so many residents. NRA lawyer Daniel Holliday said investigators have identified about 300 of the gun owners and located about 75 of them. Some could be called to testify during a trial, he added. "Finding these folks has been a nightmare," Holliday said. "That is really the guts of our case - to establish that there was indeed a pattern of the police going out and taking people's guns without any legal reason to do so."

The NRA will not be satisfied until the police department has returned all the guns or reimbursed their owners. (In Soap Box Ravings opinion there should be some type of personal judgment found against the public officials responsible for the orders to confiscate private property illegally. )

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the police have returned only about 100 of the 1,000 seized guns. "Obviously, we don't expect the city to find everybody. We only wanted to see a good-faith effort, and that's what the city didn't do," Gottlieb said. "It's a bad example to let them get away with it."

Soap Box Ravings can not help but wonder how many items besides firearms were confiscated by New Orleans Police Officers from "abandoned" homes that were never seen by the rightful owners again. Any property seized in a lawful police action should have been tagged and identified with the location, date and time from which it was seized. The address should have been included with the location along with any known information on who lived in that location. Homes evacuated for a storm were not abandoned. Homes that were actually abandoned would not have been abandoned until much later after the storm and flooding had done their damage. The police statement they only took firearms from "abandoned" homes has all the earmarks of damage control bulls**t.

War Is An Ugly Thing

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.


John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

This Is Scary

“A thought on the presence of Bill Clinton. He is showing up all over in Iowa and New Hampshire, speaking, shaking hands, drawing crowds. But when he speaks, he has a tendency to speak about himself. It’s all, always, me-me-me in his gigantic bullying neediness. Still, he’s there, and he’s a draw, and the plan was that his presence would boost his wife’s fortunes. The way it was supposed to work, the logic, was this: People miss Bill. They miss the ‘90s. They miss the pre-9/11 world. So they’ll love seeing him back in the White House. So they’ll vote for Hillary. Because she’ll bring him. ‘Two for the price of one.’ It appears not to be working. Might it be that they don’t miss Bill as much as everyone thought? That they don’t actually want Bill back in the White House? Maybe. But maybe it’s this. Maybe they’d love to have him back in the White House. Maybe they just don’t want him to bring her. Maybe they miss the Cuckoo’s Nest and they’d love having Jack Nicholson’s McMurphy running through the halls. Maybe they just don’t miss Nurse Ratched. Does she have to come?” —Peggy Noonan

Soap Box Ravings finds this to be unbelievably scary. Even the possibility that someone might get elected to the nation's highest office just so their spouse could be there. This is really freaking scary!

All My Liberal friends Should Take Note of This

Today's news reports Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has pardoned a female rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes for being alone with a man at the time of the attack who was not related to her.

The case had sparked international outcry. In this case, the White House had expressed its "astonishment" over the woman's sentence while our more liberal relatives in Canada called it barbaric.

The Saudi Justice Minister Abdullah bin Mohammed al-Sheik told al-Jazirah newspaper that the pardon does not mean the King doubted the country's judges, but instead acted in the "interests of the people." He said the king looks into alleviating the suffering of the citizens when he is sure that these verdicts will leave psychological effects on the convicted people, even though the King is convinced and sure that the verdicts were fair.

The rape victim was initially sentenced in November 2006 to several months in prison and 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man with whom she was neither related nor married, a violation of the kingdom's strict religious laws regarding segregation of the sexes.

Later the court more than doubled the sentence to 200 lashes and six months prison in response to her appeal.

Soap Box Ravings was initially amazed like everyone else to see the victim punished for being raped. But he is even more amazed to see that an appeal leads to a doubling of the sentence. Remember, this is what they have done to one of their own. A little research will show you they execute foreigners in their country about twice as often as a native. They average about one beheading every other day after appeals if any.


Al-Sheik told al-Jazirah newspaper Monday that only the king could issue a pardon, and he did so despite his view that the Saudi legal system was "honest" and "fair."

"The king's order consolidates and confirms what is known about the Islamic courts," said al-Sheik. "Efficient judges look into different cases and issue their just verdicts and those convicted have the right to appeal."

Soap Box Ravings reminds all that Islamic courst are religious courts that use Islam as their basis. Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahabiism (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya الوهابية, Wahabism is a branch of Sunni Islam practised by those who follow the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab.) This is the dominant form of Islam found in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, as well as some pockets of Somalia, Algeria, Palestine and Mauritania. It is considered to be one of the most strictest sects of Islam.

The rapists were convicted of raping the girl and were initially sentenced to jail terms from 10 months to five years. Their sentences were also increased after their appeals.

Some Thoughts Of President Theodore Roosevelt

President Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1919


President Roosevelt wrote the words above in a letter to the president of the American Defense Society on January 3,1919. Three days later, President Roosevelt died.

"Americanization" was a favorite theme of Roosevelt's during his later years, when he railed repeatedly against "hyphenated Americans" and the prospect of a nation "brought to ruins" by a "tangle of squabbling nationalities."

He advocated the compulsory learning of English by every naturalized citizen. "Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country," he said in a statement to the Kansas City Star in 1918. "English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools."

He also insisted, on more than one occasion, that America has no room for what he called "fifty-fifty allegiance." In a speech made in 1917 he said, "It is our boast that we admit the immigrant to full fellowship and equality with the native-born. In return we demand that he shall share our undivided allegiance to the one flag which floats over all of us."


Soap Box Ravings would concur with President Roosevelt on his thoughts expressed above. In Soap Box ravings opinion this is the crux of the matter. If you want to become a citizen, obey the laws and learn the English language. If you do not want to comply either go home or stay home. I wish you luck in your future endeavors.

China and U.S. Spar Over Trade, Product Safety

The complete story can be found here:

http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/12/11/china-and-us-spar-over-trade-product-safety/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fnm%2F20071211%2Fpl_nm%2Fchina_usa_dc%3B_ylt%3DAsR.mVZoMISTja.e5adHkZWs0NUE&frame=true


Trade talks with China were strained because of US anxiety over the "Made in China' label.

Soap Box Ravings can't understand why the Chinese can not build what the purchaser ordered. If the product is not made correctly as ordered then don't accept it. On the other hand if the buyer is purchasing already made products then the buyer should be responsible to ensure our import standards are met.

Soap Box ravings believes the fastest way to get Chinese products to the standard desired would be to cancel a few contracts and have the products made on this side of the world in for example Brazil, Chile, Argentina or in the Central American countries.

The Twins Are Here

At about 3:00 pm on 12/5/07 the Twins arrived. Courtesy of R&L Carriers who very expeditiously set them right into my garage. They were ordered from Granite Security through SamsClub.com.



Weighing in at about 450 lbs each, the stand 60 inches tall, they are 30 inches wide and about 23 inches deep. They are Hunter Green with gold trim. With the help of my son Ryan and my next door neighbor we got them into the house with no problem.



If you ever need to transport your firearms while moving here is how I did it. This is a bundle of three long arms. They do not touch each other, they are separated by a U-Haul paper pad which resembles a twin bed size paper blanket. While wrapping the firearms, I alternated them butt to muzzle as they seemed to fit together better. Once wrapped, the extra wrapping paper on the ends was turned back towards the center and secured with cellophane tape. Then another tape line was taped around the center. Be sure to pull the tape tight enough to ensure that the firearms can not shift around inside the wrapping.



As you can see below, they were transported and stored in my old gun cabinets. This required unloading the cabinet, wrapping the firearms, carrying the cabinet to the truck, storing the wrapped firearms in the cabinet in the bed of the truck, and then transporting to the new residence where you get to do the whole sequence in reverse.



This is the wrapping paper I used from U-Haul. It was inexpensive but since I wrapped three per bundle it was reasonable. Also, three long guns seemed to just fit into one sheet. Additionally, three long guns per bundle is approaching more than I want to carry.

Another advantage of the paper was I didn't freak out anyone of the local sheep nor did I alert any wolves as I went about my sheepdog business. They were wrapped in late December of last year and unwrapped this week yet each one arrived in excellent shape with no hint of rust.



The miracle machine that we used to move the Twins about the house is shown below. Research on-line located this little puppy at Northern Tool and Equipment. They wanted $100 to ship it to me, so I picked it up from the store in Raleigh, NC while we were in the Ft Bragg area visiting our daughter and her family. Of course their new store in Fayetteville, NC didn't open until the week after we left town.



Work on the "Man Room" continues!

Could You Expect Any Less Of William Jefferson Clinton

“Of course Bill Clinton was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. It’s proven unpopular. It would be different if the war had gone better, as it has in Afghanistan. Bill Clinton’s still for that one.

There’s a phrase for someone who’ll stick with you through thick and then and in-between: A man to tie to. Bill Clinton’s the opposite. Not only does he disappear when the going gets tough, he was never with you from the first—at least to hear him tell it. With him, history is one of the plastic arts. There is no surer guide to William Jefferson Clinton’s view of the past than what is popular in the present. All of his statements supporting the war in Iraq now have become, in a Nixonian word, inoperative. Down the memory hole they go, as if they’d never been uttered...

Bill Clinton tends to bet for and against any political proposition that involves taking a risk, then recall only the position that proved popular. That way, he can’t lose. Principle has nothing to do with it... But never fear, should the long light of history reveal that in the end this long, long struggle in Iraq has bolstered freedom and stability in that always-volatile part of the world, rest assured, Bill Clinton will have been for it all along.” —Paul Greenberg

Soap Box Ravings says you can read Paul Greenburgs entire article at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg.html

Rodney King Shot (Ho Hum)

Rodney King was shot on a street corner by bird shot fired from a shotgun. Reportedly, King and others appeared drunk and were largely uncooperative in providing information about the shooting.


Soap Box Ravings is reminded that "When people state that they can't change who they are--their nature--they sometimes use the phrase "A leopard can't change his spots" (it's used in much the same way as "you can't teach an old dog new tricks").

The phrase about leopards is descended from the Bible, in the book of Jeremiah: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" (Jer 13:23)

The only surprise here is why the news still reports on him. My guess is that no one in the military did anything worthwhile and the media needed to fill up a column

The Twins Are On Their Way

Soap Box Ravings was notified today by e-mail that the Twins had been shipped. No arrival date as of yet, but I anxiously await the truck drivers call.

Today, I started tearing down the Man Room. That is where the Twins will reside. Not any easy task since the cabinets that are being upgraded are full and not all that easy to move. Also, since we just recently moved into a new house and I was not progressing on the Man Room due to funding, the Momma managed to slip some of her stuff in the Man Room for storage. She is presently out of town so I can move things as I see fit. Some I may have to move again later. More to come.

British Teacher Guilty Of Insulting Islam In Sudan

Today in Khartoum, Sudan a British teacher in Sudan was convicted Thursday of insulting Islam by letting her students pupils name a teddy bear "Muhammad."

She was sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation to Britain. The teacher, Gillian Gibbons, could have received 40 lashes and six months in prison in the case if she had been found guilty of the original more serious charge of inciting religious hatred.

The Education Ministry had received complaints that the teacher had insulted the Prophet Muhammad, the most revered figure in Islam, by applying his name to a teddy bear.

Her employer, Robert Boulos, of the Unity High School called the verdict "a very fair verdict."


Soap Box Ravings says this should act as a warning to those folks who think they can help other cultures by bringing them our western ways. The religious conservatives in Sudan have stated their outrage was over the naming of a teddy bear after the prophet Mohammad. Soap Box Ravings feels the religious conservatives outrage goes much deeper than what was stated. The Unity High School and all employees have been placed on notice that any infractions or even just complaints by any unsatisfied or aggravated person can lead to the confinement of the teacher and or school staff members. That's gotta be a good recruiting tool.

Soap Box Ravings says also, you have to wonder about any religion that would sentence the victim of a gang rape to 200 lashes and six months confinement for not being properly chaperoned as required by Islam just prior to the rape.

Soap Box Ravings E-Mail To The National Rifle Association

A message from Soap Box Ravings to the National Rifle Association, as sent:

As a retired military person, I want you to know that I do not agree with your NRA position on the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill.

I agree with the Gun Owners of America position and I feel terribly let down by the NRA's action in support of Schumers gun bill.


The National Rifle Associations response:


Dear Mr. S. B. Ravings,

Thank you for your email to the NRA-ILA regarding H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Act. I apologize for the extremely delayed response. We appreciate everything our members have to say, and we thank you for taking the time to contact our office.

The NRA examines and supports legislation based upon its merits and benefits for law-abiding gun owners. Despite the fact that Reps. Carolyn McCarthy, Chuck Schumer, and other representatives associated with the Brady Campaign were involved with H.R. 2640, this legislation improves current law for gun owners and all Americans, and therefore holds the support of the NRA. Along with Rep. McCarthy, sponsors of this
bill include Reps. John Dingell, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Rick Boucher (D-Va)- all longtime supporters of gun owners' rights and sponsors of many pro-Second Amendment bills.

Recently, H.R. 2640 passed the House by a voice vote, which, although some have stated is a 'back door deal,' is in fact standard procedure. The reality is that there's nothing unusual about passing a widely supported bill by voice vote. Once a voice vote has occurred, any House member may request a recorded vote on any issue, and in practice, those requests are universally granted. Despite having that option on the floor, no representative asked for a roll call on this bill.

Despite what many letters and articles have stated, H.R. 2640 is not a gun control bill, and it doesn't ban anyone from owning guns. Instead, this bill provides federal funds to states to update their mental health records. This update will ensure that those who are currently prohibited under federal law from owning a gun because of mental health adjudications are included in the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For many years, NRA has supported ensuring that those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent are screened by the NICS.

H.R. 2640 states that in order to be added to the NICS system one must be adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed (i.e. against one's will) to a mental institution. H.R. 2640 would prevent use of federal "adjudications" that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent.

The fact that medical diagnoses would not qualify as adjudication would change the current NICS standards, which accept Veterans` Administration decisions that a veteran or other beneficiary is an "adjudicated mental defective" where there was no "adjudication" at all--only a decision that the patient is unable to manage his own finances. Many patients may have accepted such a decision without expecting to lose their gun ownership rights. Instead of allowing this to continue, H.R. 2640 would eliminate purely medical records from NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to himself or others (by a court or legal authority, not, as we have established, by a medical professional), or
lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.

It is also important to note what H.R. 2640 will not do. This bill will not add any new classes of prohibited persons to NICS, and it will not prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital for treatment.


So why the confusion?


First and foremost, the national media elite is irate that NRA has been able to roll back significant portions of the Clinton Administration's anti-gun agenda and pass pro-active legislation in Congress and in many states. They are desperate to put a "gun control" spin on anything they can. The only real question here is--given the media's long-standing and flagrant bias on the gun issue-- why are some gun owners suddenly swallowing the bait?

Second, some people simply do not like the NICS. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act, including a mandatory five-day waiting period, over strong NRA opposition. Due to NRA's insistence, that waiting period was allowed to sunset in 1998, once the NICS was up and running nationwide. Now that the NICS is in place, it makes sense to ensure that this system works as instantly, fairly, and accurately as possible.

This is an extremely important and complex issue, and as part of your ongoing research, I encourage you to further review the information regarding this bill and to read the bill itself (which I have attached to this email for your review). By doing so, you will be able to properly compare the media you have been receiving and reach your own conclusion about whether or not you support this legislation. If you
haven't already, I encourage you to become more familiar with the bill by visiting our website, www.nraila.org and reading the five articles on HR 2640. These articles give credence to the legitimate pro-gun nature of this bill. One of the articles is written by Larry Scott for www.military.com. Formed in 1999, this group was started, "to revolutionize the way the 30 million Americans with military affinity
stay connected and informed. Today, [they are] the largest military and veteran membership organization - 8 million members strong." I can assure you that they have a vested interest in caring for the well-being of veterans and military personnel.

The NRA continues to support this legislation, which streamlines the NICS system to ensure law-abiding citizens are afforded their rights. Simultaneously, this bill ensures that criminals and those adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court will be unable to own firearms. Rest assured that if the anti-gunners use this legislation as
a vehicle to advance gun control restrictions, NRA will pull our support for the bill and vigorously oppose its passage!

Once again, thank you for your comments. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address or at (800) 392-8683.


Sincerely,

Alicia Borgess
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division


Soap Box Ravings has posted the National Rifle Associations response to enable those who read it to make up their own minds on whether the NRA is acting in their benefit or not. Soap Box Ravings suggests that all who have an interest in the final outcome of the NICS Improvement Act complete their own analysis of the facts before making their decision on the NRA's efforts.

Qualifications? What Are Qualifications?

“[T]here is one job we can’t afford on-the-job training for—that’s the job of our next president. Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families.” —Hillary Clinton jabbing Barack Obama

“My understanding was that she wasn’t Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, so I don’t know exactly what experiences she’s claiming.” —Barack Obama jabbing back “There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues. On the other hand, I don’t think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a U.S. senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I’ve done. I think the fact of the matter is that Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn’t work out, in which case she has nothing to do with it.” —Barack Obama back at her


Soap Box Ravings wonders if either of them have any "qualifications" other than the minimum legal qualifications required to run for the Presidency.

It is Soap Box Raving's opinion that neither of them have demonstrated any ability nor proficiency that would cause me to believe that either of them is capable of being the President of the United States of America.

American Heritage Dictionary:

1. The act of qualifying or the condition of being qualified.

2. A quality, ability, or accomplishment that makes a person suitable for a
particular position or task.

3. A condition or circumstance that must be met or complied with: fulfilled the
qualifications for registering to vote in the presidential election.

4. A restriction or modification: an offer with a number of qualifications.

Food For Thought

Soap Box Ravings says this information arrived via the internet. You will find similiar accounts posted on various sites. It is posted here because it matches my basic philosophy of life.

To all you old law dogs now just lyin' in the shade; current pistoleros and other fervent Second Amendment believers:

I would rather be your friend, but if you are not interested in that, I am prepared to be a capable and efficient enemy. ~ Jeff Cooper


This is the law:

(1)The purpose of fighting is to win.

(2)There is no possible victory in defense.

(3)The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either.

(4) The final weapon is the brain.

All else is supplemental." ~ John Steinbeck


Some Natural Rules of Life:

1- Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2- If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics probably stink.

3- I carry a gun, 'cause a cop is too heavy.

4- America is not at war. The U.S. Military is at war. America is at the mall.

5- When seconds count, remember the cops are just minutes away, the bad guy is all ready there.

6- A reporter did a human interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45?". The Ranger response was, "Because they don't make a 46."

7- An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

8- The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. "Sheriff, I see you have your pistol, are you expecting trouble?"

The old sheriff responded; "No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle."

9- Beware of the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it!

Congress Flies First Class

With exquisite timing, Boeing chooses the Thanksgiving travel weekend to deliver a top-of-the-line Boeing Business Jet that will be assigned to Congress -- the very same folks who have charged billions in air travel taxes over the decades and left us with 1930s blind-landing technology.

The C-40C, jam-packed with 40 seats by luxury-jet specialists at Greenpoint Technologies, is the third and last of a batch ordered in 2005. They will be operated by the USAF reserve to carry Congressional delegations around the world.

Funny how none of our elected Representatives or Senators ever mention these $70 million jets and their maintenance and operating costs as an example of wasteful defense spending. Or as an example of an unjustified Air Force mission that doesn't support our soldiers on the ground.

Getting ready for the Twins

Check out these beauties, they are on the way courtesy of Sam's Club and some lucky trucker.



I spent a lot of time checking these out. The hard part was figuring out how to move them into the house as some delivery services want the receiver to unload the truck. They might be pretty, but they are also hefty. My son is a pretty good sized lad but he got a little pasty in the face when I asked him to help me move them into the house since he knows these sweeties approach the 600 pound mark.

However, I found an appliance or vending machine mover which can handle 1200 pounds at Northern Tool.com for $149.99. Now whenever they need to be moved we can do it with ease. The folks at Sam's Club said the delivery driver will place them at the nearest entrance of the house to the curb which is the garage...Perfect.

So until they arrive, I will be busy fixing their spot in the Man Room.

More to come on this adventure, at this point all seems to be complete except for the "Aw Sh*t" which kinda, usually, sneaks up on my carefully laid plan.

Darrell Scott's Testimony

Darrell Scott is the father of Rachel Scott, one of thirteen victims murdered at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, 20 April 1999 by two sociopaths. Twenty-four students were injured. Mr. Scott testified before the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee on crime delivered 27 May 1999, Rayburn House office building in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Scott's remarks:

Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers. The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field.

The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA.

I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy-it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room.

Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,

Your words are empty air.

You've stripped away our heritage,

You've outlawed simple prayer.

Now gunshots fill our classrooms,

And precious children die.

You seek for answers everywhere,

And ask the question "Why?"

You regulate restrictive laws,

Through legislative creed.

And yet you fail to understand,

That God is what we need!

Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc. Spiritual influences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.

What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties.

We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will not be squelched! We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs are being ignored.

We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgment that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God! As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA- I give to you a sincere challenge.

Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!

More Ravings

There are people I talk with whom I sometimes believe may think me rather single minded on my position relating to firearms and personal responsibility.

For those who may read this post, Google any or all of the suggestions listed below:

Woman Dies After Dispatcher Refuses to Send Help

Slow Police Response or

Slow Fire Department Response

Read some of the responses. I think the results are kinda shocking.

Soap Box Ravings says, "Help is moments (?) away and always dependent upon someone else. With the proper planning, you may have resolved the problem before help arrives. Without the proper planning, someone else may resolve your problem (and not necessarily to your benefit) before help arrives."

Todays Commentary

Stop by these sites for updated commentary on the world today.

http://patriotpost.us/current/

http://www.mises.org/

http://www.cato.org/

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

Ten Things I Hate

1. People who point at their wrist while asking for the time.... I know where my watch is pal, where the heck is yours? Do I point at my crotch when I ask where the toilet is?

2 People who are willing to get off their butt to search the entire room for the T.V. remote because they refuse to walk to the T.V. and change the channel manually.

3 When people say "Oh you just want to have your cake and eat it too". Dang right! What good is cake if you can't eat it too?

4 When people say "it's always the last place you look". Of course it is. Why the heck would you keep looking after you've found it? Do people do this? Who and where are they? They need their butts kicked!

5 When people say while watching a film "did you see that?". No loser, I paid $12 to come to the cinema and stare at the darn floor.

6 People who ask "Can I ask you a question?".... Didn't really give me a choice there, did ya sunshine?

7. When something is 'new and improved!' Which is it? If it's new, then there has never been anything before it. If it's an improvement, then there must have been something before it, couldn't be new.

8 When people say "life is short". What the heck? Life is the longest darn thing anyone ever does!! What can you do that's longer?

9 When you are waiting for the bus and someone asks "Has the bus come yet?". If the bus came would I be standing here, dumbass?

10. If you carry a cell phone and I call, answer the damn thing. Like it or not, I called and I want to talk to you or I would not have called you in the first place.

Celebrate Diversity

The Irrelevance Of The Peaceful Majority

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I landed in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant! It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal Groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire Continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" the "silent majority" is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population, it was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians ; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Soap Box Ravings did not write this, it showed up in his in-box. The author was not identified and my attempts to identify him or her were unsuccessful. However, Soap Box Ravings while not attempting to offend anyone believes this issue to be very serious and by posting this message he hopes to fight the passiveness that allows this situation to expand.

Helping Those Who Need It

Soap Box Ravings says: "Like a lot of folks in this country...I have a job. I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for hem?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sitting on their butt and using drugs.

Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?"

The Police Are only Moments Away (Hehehehehe)

The Ormond Beach Police Department will soon close their police station at night to save money.

Soap Box Ravings wonders if the upper level management of Ormond Beach managed to get any pay raises this year.

The County will take over taking over dispatch duties for Ormond Beach, which is a real money saver. There will be no more civilians working here 24-7, the Department will lock the lobby doors at 6 p.m. and they will remain closed until 6 a.m.

Some Ormond beach citizens are concerned that citizens' safety will be compromised when the police lock their doors overnight. The Chief says no.

Soap Box Ravings thinks since the Chief says No, he was probably in on the conception of the plan.

Ormond Beach police will turn over dispatching duties to the County and communications officers who previously were available throughout the night will not be there after hours.

Soap Box Ravings believes this is a good plan, on paper. However, the plan seems destined for disaster when the excrement hits the fan. When county dispatchers are overwhelmed on the night shift by an emergency in the county, the residents of Ormond Beach may well be ignored. Unless of course, the county adds more dispatchers to cover the increased communications load...........but then they would have to charge the cost of additional dispatchers to..........Ormond Beach.

Illegal Aliens

The majority of politicians are aware of the information presented here, they just don't care.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year.

http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the United States

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth., heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S. from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report:

http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.

http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States."

http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

So using the LOWEST estimates, the annual cost OF ILLEGAL ALIENS is $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! So if deporting them costs between $206 and $230 BILLION DOLLARS, Hell, get rid of 'em, We will all be ahead before the end of the 1st year!!!

Soap Box Ravings says "Americans need to first wake up and then pay attention."

What's With This

Soap Box Ravings wonders why when the subject of any Democrats criticism responds, such as al-Maliki's response to Senator Clinton and Senator Levin, it is reported as "Iraqi Leader Lashes Out at U.S." The media never describes the statements of the Democrats as lashing out.

One For The Dogs

Michael Vick was identified by a police canine who hit on drugs in a car in a night club parking lot. The subject who owned the car was Vick's cousin Davon Boddie.

After arresting Boddie, the police got a search warrant for the address Boddie provided as his. When police searched the address they identified 66 dogs and evidence of dog fighting.

Michael Vick's claim that he was never there was proven to be false.

Soap Box Ravings, a retired MCPO and now a retired police officer always loves it when the puzzle fits together. A cop and a dog, doing their job. I have always maintained that the we, the police, are not so smart but that the bad guys are soooo stupid. Just like the idiot who gets mad at his "Old Lady" and calls the police to throw her out while he "forgets" about the warrants issued in his name. A professional officer when involved, runs every ones name. The results are often very surprising. During my tenure, I never had to look for an arrest, they came to me like I was a ***t magnet.

I Wonder Why

Clinton Says Attack Would Help GOP

By Alexander Mooney,CNN for AOL, 2007-08-25

WASHINGTON (Aug. 25) - She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.

Soap Box Ravings believes the "Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists" is really not equipped at all, specifically since she has no understanding of the fight being conducted by our government at the present time.


Soap Box Ravings also wonders if an attack by terrorists before the election would benefit Republicans does that not indicate some essential flaw in the Democrats strategy or their basic party platform as related to the defense of this country.

Sen. Hillary Clinton said the Republicans would benefit politically if a terrorist attack occurred before the '08 vote.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' " Clinton, a New York Democrat, told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post and The Associated Press and confirmed by her campaign.

"But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."

A major difference between Soap Box Ravings and Senator Clinton is that we disagree on who made the world dangerous. It can be argued that many previous governmental decisions, both Republican and Democrat, contributed to the many people in this world who hate us, Muslim or otherwise. However, we did not initiate the attacks on the United States up to and including the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Clinton added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."


Soap Box Ravings wonders if you can't even identify the enemy, how can you be the "best Democratic Presidential candidate "to deal with that.""

Clinton was in the crucial early voting state Thursday to unveil her health care plan.

A Clinton spokesman, Isaac Baker, told CNN "Sen. Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."

Soap Box Ravings wonders exactly what experience of Senator Clinton is going to ensure the safety of the United states. Her spokesman always make unverifiable claims concerning her strengths and experience. They never specifically point to anything verifiable.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who is also competing for the Democratic nomination, issued a statement Friday afternoon calling Clinton's remark "tasteless."

"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," he said.

New Mexico Bill Richardson, another Democratic presidential candidate, disparaged Clinton's remark.

"We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Gov Richardson in a written statement.

Some Law Enforcement Words Of Wisdom

Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."

"I carry a gun, 'cause a cop is too heavy."

America is not at war. The U.S. Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall.

When seconds count the cops are just minutes away.

When a reporter did a human interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45". The Ranger responded with, "They don't make a 46".

"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity".


========================================================================

The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady
commented on his wearing his sidearm.

"Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?"

"No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle."


========================================================================

"Beware the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it"

One "Democrat" Worthy Of A Vote

Al Qaeda's Travel Agent

Senator Lieberman writes about the supply of terrorists entering Iraq through Syria.

Defeating al Qaeda in Iraq requires we target its links to "global" al Qaeda who enter Iraq through Syria. Foreign fighters (al Qaeda) in Iraq are supported through the Damascus airport. Syria as a country with much more control of their citizens than our country. In fact they have so much control it is impossible to believe al Qadea passes through without the Syrian governments knowledge.

You can see Senator Lieberman's complete article at:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010496

Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.


Soap Box Ravings believes this is a "Democrat" with principles. He does not appear to need a poll to identify the "right thing to do." The Democrats dumped him because of his failure to toe the party line thereby ensuring he stands apart from the likes of Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, John Kerry and many other panderers of the Democrat party. I am sure Harry Truman and John Kennedy would be proud to call this man a friend.

Soap Box Ravings Presents This For Your Reading Pleasure

"I've Changed My Mind"
by USCCA Member 'yankeedime'


I try to be open-minded and study both sides of an argument. After studying the gun control issues I have to say that I now support gun control because...


1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles', because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
Soap Box Ravings says more information on this and other interesting subjects can be found at the following site: www.usconcealedcarry.com/

Gun Tracking In New Jersey Or Looking In The Wrong Direction

The Governor of New Jersey announced that New Jersey will become the first state in the country to step up its tracing of illegal firearms by sharing a federal gun database. Gov. Corzine said the state would now have real-time electronic access to a database maintained by the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that lists a gun's first buyer, date of sale, and the retailer from which it was purchased.

Soap Box Ravings would like to point out that a firearm may have had many legal owners since it's original purchaser in many states is not required to register the private party sale of a firearm.

Supposedly, this would give New Jersey a powerful mechanism to analyze illegal gun violence and trafficking patterns, officials said, and potentially allow authorities to quickly link crimes in several towns.

The announcement came a week and a half after three college students in Newark were executed in a school yard though officials said the agreement had been in the works for six months.

Soap Box Ravings wonders about the position of the liberal Governor and the liberal State of New Jersey with respect to illegal immigrants living in the State of New Jersey since at least one person arrested for the execution of three college students was an illegal alien indicted last month for raping a five-year-old girl repeatedly over a four-year period and threatening to kill her family. Yet, the police in Newark are told by government officials to disregard any subjects supposed alien status.

Corzine said the partnership "will allow us to pursue, arrest and prosecute the purchasers and sellers of illegal guns that have plagued our streets and communities for far too long."

"This is not the only answer, but it is a fundamental building block" in curbing gun violence in the state, Corzine said. He said he would encourage other governors to make similar agreements.

In Soap Box Ravings opinion, we again see the liberal change of targets to protect the illegals. Even though we have an illegal alien, wanted for sexual offenses for about 14 years who has participated in the execution of three college students, it is obvious to the politicians of New Jersey that this is a firearms problem. This just screams "liberal smokescreen."

"Comprehensive firearms tracing and analysis saves lives -- that's the bottom line here today," said Mark Potter, special agent in charge of the ATF's Philadelphia division. Potter said guns can only be accurately traced if their serial numbers can be retrieved.

Soap Box Ravings points out that the tracing of firearms is done after the criminal act has been committed if the firearm is recovered by law enforcement. Removing all illegal aliens from the United States would reduce the crimes committed by illegal aliens to zero.

Camden's top law enforcement official, Arturo Venegas Jr., said the database -- and having information from every local police department -- would be "fantastic because it enables us to move faster in determining whether we have illegal guns," regardless of where they come from.

Soap Box Ravings' "Emperor Principle" says that police brass love anything that increases their power base and gets their department more money to spend. If the Empire is not growing, the Empire is dying, there are no static Empires.

In a country that can track the great grandmother of a cow bred in Canada for mad cow disease, or botulism from lettuce in a single California farmer's field, I believe we should be able to register and keep track of aliens living in this country.

The Second Amendment, It Still Means What It Says

"THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT"
by J. Neil Schulman'

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 the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:


"July 26, 1991

"Dear Professor Copperud:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, '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 debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.

"Sincerely,

"J. Neil Schulman"

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]

[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]

[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]

[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]

[Copperud:] Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure. There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited.

All other rights reserved.

Soap Box Ravings says more information on this and other interesting subjects can be found at the following site: www.usconcealedcarry.com/

Public Schools Need to Stick to Reading, Writing and Math All Conducted In The English Language To Accepted State Standards

On Friday, the embattled principal of an Arabic-themed public school in New York resigned after coming under fire for failing to condemn the use of the highly charged word "intifada" on T-shirts.

Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder how many Puerto Rican, Haitian, Native American or Hindu themed schools exist in the New York City school system. But I point out for example: a school that is 100 per cent full of students of Puerto Rican ethnicity is not the same thing as a Puerto Rican themed school. Soap Box ravings says "Some folks in the leadership positions of the New York City school system should also be resigning for wasting government funds."

Debbie Almontaser was supposed to oversee the Khalil Gibran International Academy in Brooklyn. The New York City's Department of Education says it remains committed to launching the school in September.

A number of conservative Web sites, blogs and other publications have come out against the school. Some have questioned Almontaser's character and tried to paint her as a radical Muslim with a dangerous agenda.

Soap Box Ravings is of the belief that an Arab does not necessarily have to be Muslim. He also believes that all who are believers in the Muslim religion are taught the same things; therefore all who profess to be believers have all the knowledge they need to become "radical Muslims."

Almontaser has said the school will be teaching culture, not religion. The academy, named after the famed Lebanese-American Christian poet who promoted peace, would be one of a few in this country that incorporate the Arabic language and culture.

Soap Box Ravings opinion is if you live in this country, you should learn our culture. If the parents of Arabic children want them to learn the Arabic culture, they should teach them. If the decide they do not like our culture, the entrance door opens both ways. We do not force immigrants who do not like it here to stay here.

Almontaser's departure comes on the heels of an editorial flaying in the New York Post and an article this week that connected Almontaser to Arab Women Active in Art and Media.

That group, Arab Women Active in Art and Media, is selling shirts imprinted with the words "Intifada NYC." It shares office space with the Saba Association of American Yemenis, which counts Almontaser among its board members.

The (unidentified) tabloid asserted the shirts had a subversive meaning: "The inflammatory tees boldly declare 'Intifada NYC' — apparently a call for a Gaza-style uprising in the Big Apple."

Almontaser, a public school teacher with 15 years of experience, told the paper that was a stretch and defined intifada as basically meaning "shaking off." However, in this country the word is most often associated with the violent Palestinian uprising against the Israelis.

She said the shirts provided an "opportunity for girls to express that they are part of New York City society ... and shaking off oppression."

Mayor Bloomberg said on his radio show that "she's certainly not a terrorist" but called her resignation the "right thing to do."

Soap Box Ravings wonders how Mayor Bloomberg can state so positively that "she's certainly not a terrorist." As a retired police officer, I know that many of my peers would like to know how to positively identify whether some one is or is not a terrorist.

So far, 45 students have enrolled in the school, which will eventually cover middle and high school.

Soap Box Ravings wonders what the cost is to the educational system in the State of New York to set up this school for 45 students. I bet there are lot of groups in New York State that could cough up 45 or so students for their own educational system. Somehow, I would bet there are at least 45 Nepalese in need of an eduction. Just think about all the themed schools there could be: misplaced red necks, maple syrup makers, steel workers, street kids, hot rod lovers, biker groups, etc.

This Is Government Cute

Sorry About the Bombs; Here's Your Bill

From AOL.com; Associated Press; August 06, 2007

SURF CITY, N.J. - The Army Corps of Engineers, which accidentally dumped sand filled with old military ordnance on Surf City's beach, now wants the town to help pay to remove it.

Local officials are angered by the suggestion that they should help foot the bill for a federal goof that already has cost the town an unknown amount of tourism business.

"If they're talking about getting any money out of Surf City to pay for their mistakes, they can forget about it," Mayor Leonard T. Connors told The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Army Corps spokesman Khaalid Walls said local governments are routinely asked to help pay for projects.

"That's protocol. All our projects are cost-shared," Walls said.

The town had to close its beach in March after World War I-era ordnance, including fuses and other military hardware, started surfacing in sand pumped ashore during a $71 million beach replenishment project.

According to Walls, the Army Corps unwittingly took sand from an offshore site where the military had dumped explosives decades ago.

More than 1,100 explosives, each about 4 inches in diameter and 8 inches long, were removed from Surf City's beach.

Surf City reopened its beach over Memorial Day weekend with new rules: Don't use metal detectors, don't dig more than a foot into the sand, and report anything suspicious to lifeguards.

Even so, visitors since then have found about a dozen more munitions, the Army Corps says. The Army has an ordnance specialist at the beach full time to take charge of discovered explosives.

It's unlikely that one of the explosives would ever detonate, but it would be extremely dangerous if it did, said Keith Watson, the Army Corps' project manager.

Soap Box Ravings loves things like "unlikely" and "but" used in the same sentence. Usually the person who makes that type of statement is smart enough to remain anonymous.

The Army Corps, along with state and local officials, are considering a possible closure of the beach during the winter to clear out more ordnance.

Again, Soap Box Ravings sees occasional flashes of freaking genius in government as all the levels, Federal, State, and local consider "possible" closing the beaches.

The Army Corps might sieve the entire beach with machinery, or it might bring back the ground-penetrating metal-detection equipment used in the spring.

Soap Box Ravings wonders if mere possession of these pieces of ordnance is legal for anyone except the military.

However, we have to remember, that perhaps the Army, as well as many of our citizens believes that when an error is made it can not be their fault.

The Selling of Principles

The 2008 Democrat presidential candidates all seem to agree on one thing:

The United States should immediately begin to withdraw from Iraq.

The Democrats' eagerness to abandon the mission in Iraq is puzzling, since they all claim to be committed to rooting out terrorism wherever it exists.

In May 2007, Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards said it is "obvious" that al Qaeda is trying to establish a base in Iraq that they can use to plan future attacks.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "But do you dispute that al Qaeda has a presence in the al-Anbar province, in other provinces in Iraq, that they're trying to establish a base there from which to do their evil deeds?" Edwards: "No, of course I don't dispute that. That's obvious." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 5/2/07)

In June 2007, Edwards pledged to fight terrorists abroad so we would not have to fight them at home.

Edwards: "As President of the United States I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies." (Former Sen. John Edwards, CNN/WMUR/Union-Leader Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)

Edwards' recent remarks echoed his 2004 Vice Presidential nomination speech, where he said that he and John Kerry would send an "unmistakable message" to terrorists.

Edwards: "[W]e will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaeda and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you." (Former Sen. John Edwards, Remarks At The 2004 Democratic National Convention, Boston, MA, 7/28/04)

Barack Obama has also voiced concerns of a terrorist threat.

Obama: "We have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down. Networks have to be dismantled." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)

Even Hillary Clinton agreed that those who have attacked us must be destroyed .

Clinton: "[L]et's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)

If Democrats acknowledge that al Qaeda is in Iraq, and say that we should destroy terrorists wherever they are, why are they willing to risk Iraq becoming a safe haven for our enemies?

Keeping our nation safe requires more than words.

It requires principled leadership and a commitment to fighting terror that these candidates simply, in my opinion, do not demonstrate.

Soap Box Ravings has to agree with the statement above. None of these candidates appear to demonstrate a belief in the principles required to fight terrorists worldwide. Their principals seem more related to evacuating Iraq as fast as possible, raising taxes and opening the borders of the United States to illegal aliens.