In Defense Of Self Defense & Supreme Court Shooting Down DC Gun Laws

It was a split decision, but at last and at least the Supreme Court of the United States has taken a stand on the American Constitution.

Sadly, it has not had much to say on violations of the Constitution carried out by the Bush regime, nor taken any stand on the daily decline in our constitutionally protected rights.

More important to them than the Constitution being torn to shreds were Washington, DC (District of Columbia) gun laws that ban legal ownership of guns by DC citizens.

Mind you, DC, among other cities, has often vied for the Murder Capital of the World title. So, I can see the local law enforcement's logic in trying to ban guns (for the last 32 years). But, both as someone born in Pakistan and having been taught to handle my father's favorite Webley & Scott revolver, and now as an American with an affinity for Smith & Wesson/Walther devices, I fully support the right of Americans to bear arms.

Of course, the NRA, of which I should be a member but am not, would probably disagree with my contention that there do have to be some limits on the types, and possibly even number, of guns we can or should be allowed to own.

I support the right to bear arms for several reasons.

My interest in owning weapons includes having them for target shooting, self-defence and all that the Constitution intended as good reasons to bear arms.

However, I also do not think we, or any non-law-enforcement citizen, need some sort of 3000 rounds per minute assault rifle or machine gun to do all of the things above.

We live in unsafe times. Security of the homeland means protecting ourselves not just from would be suicide-bombers but also from armed home invaders, drug dealers, road-rage-warriors, thugs, muggers, petty criminals, gang members, and so many other types of vile scum that can easily snuff out our lives for a few Dollars, or on a whim.

So, I do support the Supreme Court decision shooting down the DC gun laws, but I also hope for two more things.

The Supreme Court, and American courts in general, should also not hobble American law-enforcement from coming down hard on hard core criminals who often brazenly conduct their business better armed than our Police officers.

Of course, it would also be nice if the Supreme Court actually did something more to protect the whole Constitution itself from our increasingly fascist dictatorial executive branch and lame, crippled Congress, and spineless Senate, and not just try to address one particular aspect of the Constitution. What do you think?

Judge sentences porn spammers to 5+ years

Finally a judge shows some wisdom and throws the book at porn spammers who sent sexual images with open images for any adult or child to see. Hope they are treated as porn queens in the prisons they are sent to. Say Hello To Bubba, boys! After they spend some "hard time" here, they ought to be shipped off to Saudi Arabia, even better, Afghanistan, for further hospitality.

read more | digg story

Long (Winded) Arms Of The Law

LinkedIn is a very popular and powerful web based tool/service which is basically "social-networking" meets "business networking" enabling professionals to share and grow their connections. I have met as well as reconnected with many wonderful new and old contacts there.

In trying to expand the level of services they offer, LinkedIn's owners have started a section called Answers, which is trying to copy a similar (but stupid) service offered by Yahoo! Yahoo's service is stupid and dangerous because people often ask serious and sometimes even medical questions and people wholly unqualified to answer (probably even people like me LOL) can respond with what could be wrong or dangerous information. LinkedIn is not likely to be dangerous like that.

I recently saw a question posted by a contact of mine, the very erudite and respected Irwin Kramer, of Legal Television.

It asked how LAW could be made more "user-friendly". I assume that means how it can become less drowsiness causing, painful, confusing and damn near indecipherable to people like you and me.

Tell me what you think of my (non-Legal) opinion:-

"Well, in my humble opinion, for starters, all else being equal, unless other circumstances require, not absolving writers of legal documents, laws, lawyers, judges, henceforth referred to as "writers", of responsibility for grammatical mistakes, including those made accidentally, or typogrpahically excepting electronically introduced errors, and not in any way undermining, or exceeding, any laws, statutes, procedure rules, or similar instruments of law, using, putting to use, enabling and enforcing, excepting use of force, sentences not to exceed 20 words, or 100 characters, or 2 commas....

MEANING, Make Lawyers Write English not HowCanIStretchThisParagraphIntoOneEnglishLatinCombiningSentence."