The framers certainly weren't thinking of Class III weapons, since there wasn't anything man portable that could kill more than a couple person a minute at range back then.
I never have liked that logic. For several reasons. One is that the framers also could not have imagined the Internet, or desktop publishing. Back in their day freedom of the press meant freedom for rich white men who were able to afford to buy a printing press and the paper and ink and technicians needed to run it. They did not imagine that everyone would be able to send out a message from the privacy of their homes to anyone in the world. So does that mean that the internet is not protected by the first ammendment?
Second, at the time the Constitution was written it was possible for a man trianed with a bow to shoot farther (if he had an English Longbow), faster, and much more accurately than a man trained with a musket. The main reason we went to muskets was that they required less training. A random, previously untrained person could, with a little instruction have a hope of hitting a man coming at him marching in colum. Whereas a random, previously untrained person would need lots of training to do the same with a bow. Plus a musket could be used in foul weather and when fitted with a bayonet could be used as a pike or as a club. Bows do not make good clubs or pikes.
While a bow is not quite the same as a class III firearm, they were, in their day, the equivalent.
BTW, I got to shoot a Class III rifle the other day, an old WWII M1A1 Thompson. It was a blast!
Well, what I meant was, that there are no public roads in Texas that you can not drive on with a drivers license. But there are plenty of public buildings that you can not enter if you are carrying a concealed firearm. I have no problem with the owner of private property denying me the priviledge to either drive on the property or carry a gun there. But, just as you would not like the idea of publicly funded roads not being accessable to all drivers, I do not like the idea of public buildings/property that I am not allowed to enter while carrying concealed. I do think that if they don't want me carrying into a court or legislative building, then they should offer a check-in service, so that I don't have to make a choice of not brining it with me that day (potentially a life threatening decision) or leaving it in my car (where it could be stolen).
The class was not bad, it was much like I remember driver's ed to be: lot's of talk about what could go wrong, what the laws are, what could go wrong, the effects of bullets on people (think about the movies you watched in driver's ed like Blood Flows Red on the Highway), stuff like that. And yeah, just like with the driver's exam, if you can't pass it you should not be toting a gun around in public.
As for gun fingerprinting, take a look at a post I made on it here
I think it's fairly non-paranoid. To sum up, I think that wear and tear on guns will make the fingerprinting useless because unlike people fingerprints, they will change over time and with use. Imagine if your fingerprints changed slightly every time you used them. How would that affect the current fingerprintng system?
Drivers Licenses give you the privillege of driving, for a small yearly fee, on publicly owned and funded roads. You do _not_ need a drivers license to purchase a car or to operate a car on private property. What would this gun license give you? Access to publicly funded and owned shooting ranges?
In Texas to have a license to carry a concealed handgun you have to take a mandatory 8 hour class and shoot your gun at a range and have the score equal some number or higher. To get a drivers license you just show up and apply if you are over 18. To save costs a few years ago they stopped having the DPS driving with new applicants under 18 years old as long as they showed that they had gone to a driver's ed class and passed. So, at least in Texas, to carry a concealed handgun it takes more class time, and a practical exam, than to get a driver's license. And there are many more restrictions on where you can go than with a drivers license.
Car inspections are to make sure that the car you drive on public roads passes a certain safety standard. And increasingly they are caring much less about the safety of the car and focusing almost exclusively on emissions. When take the concealed carry class in Texas, at least the one I went to, the instructors check out your firearm to make sure that it is functional and safe.
Car registration is a tax on car owners to help pay for the maintenance of public roads. Will a gun registration help pay for the funding and building of public shooting ranges?
As an aside, I thought I'd list a few things that they pointed out at the class:
Always carry pepper spray.
Lot's of confrontations can be ended quickly and relatively harmlessly by the quick use of pepper spray. Scary guy hanging out at your car at night, spray him. Drunk guy follows you out of the bar and will nto take NO for an answer, spray him. This was mainly aimed at the women on the group, but it's good for the guys as well. No one wants to kill someone if they don't have to.
Never ever ever shot a warning shot over someones head or into the air
We see this all the time in movies and on tv. BUT you do not know where that bullet is going to come down. If you feel you have to shoot and do not want to shoot a person, aim at the ground in front of you. Yes, the shot may ricohcet, but most of the energy in the bullet will be expended by the contact with the ground. You'll get the point across and no one will be injured by accident.
HunterD, I just read your post in which you stated " there is NO solid reason for the NRA to be against this, except that they support strong gun rights for not just citizens, hunters and for protection...but they effectivly support strong gun rights for criminals, doing their best to make it difficult for people to be charged with gun crimes - or for a gun to be used as evidence of another crime." I would like to present my views on ballistic fingerprinting. My concern with ballistic fingerprinting is that it will be inaccurate as the fingerprints will change over time, unlike human fingerprints, which stay the same from birth to death.
My father and I run a small machine shop here in Fort Worth, Texas, and I have been involved in machining and woodworking since the early eighties. I am familiar with metal tools, and with how tools will, with normal use, become worn out. Firearms, in this instance, are like any other metal tool, they will wear out with use. Two examples of tool wear, which I'm sure you are familiar with are a car and a knife. In a car, a small amount of gasoline and air is mixed into the cylinder. This mixture is ignited and the resulting explosion moves the piston which causes the car to move (basically). The piston is usually coated in oil, and both the piston and the cylinder are hardened, yet, through normal use, the piston wears away at the cylinder, thus enlarging it and causing problems. Firearms are similar: there is a small explosion which propels the bullet through the barrel just like the piston and cylinder in a car. However, the barrel does not have any oil in it to help lubricate the bullets passage and retard the erosion. In fact, oil in the barrel can cause catastrophic failure. A firearm can blow up due to oil (or anything else for that matter) in the barrel, so while barrels are lubed for cleaning, they are wiped clean before firing. Every time a bullet passes through the barrel a little bit of the barrel is removed. The amount is small, but over time it adds up. You can see this for yourself by looking at an old rifle, say a WWII-era Mauser or Enfield (or any old hunting rifle) and comparing the rifling (the lands and groves in the barrel) to that of a newly produced rifle of the same caliber. There will be a visible difference. This is common: people who shoot these older rifles often use bullets that are slightly oversize so that they will engage the rifling.
BTW, if you are not familliar with what the rifling on a gun looks like, rent a James Bond movie. The opening, when James walks out and he's spotlighted and then he turns to the camera and shoots, that spotlight is you looking down the barrel of a gun at him. Notice the spiraly thingys? That's the rifling of the barrel.
A friend of the family recently asked me to take a look at a pistol purchased by his father in the late 30s. He grew up using this.22 to hunt small game and shoot at tin cans on their farm. After a thorough cleaning to get out the grime, dust, and fouling, I used a bore light to examine the barrel and discovered that there was practically no rifling left on this gun, it was worn down to almost nothing and I had trouble seeing the rifling. I asked my friend if he had any idea how often the gun had been shot. He said he did not know, but estimated it at several thousand rounds. Certainly this particular.22 pistol would not match any previous ballistic fingerprint records made of it. Ballistic fingerprinting will work perfectly as long as no one ever fires their firearm.
I'm sure you've used knives in your kitchen to prepare a meal. I am also sure that unless you have the new Ginsu knives, you have sharpened those knives several times. Knives must be sharpened because even though the food is much, much softer than the steel knife, a small amount of the blade is removed every time the knife is used, which causes the knife to become dull. Removing more metal from the blade, leaving behind an edge able to cut easily again, sharpens the knife. But, each time you sharpen the blade, more metal is removed, until eventually, there is no more knife left. I have a paring knife that belonged to my grandmother, which I am sure she used quite often. From the little bit of metal that remains protruding from, and the shape of, the handle, one can see that the knife originally was a little over an inch wide. Now, after years of use and sharpening, the knife measures barely a quarter of an inch across. While a dramatic example, this clearly illustrates the wear that knife blades are susceptible to. Similarly, firearm barrels can be worn out or eroded through use. You might say that the metal used in my grandmother's knife was substandard or poor, and you are probably correct. But many older guns, and some of the low end newer guns, are made of similar metals, hardened to a similar Rockwell hardness.
It is the malleability of the firearm's barrel that I am concerned about. As I understand it, ballistic fingerprinting works by firing a bullet through a newly produced firearm, with the resulting case and bullet kept on file. When an empty case or fired bullet is recovered at a crime scene it is checked against this record to get a match. This works great when a gun is recovered shortly after a crime was committed as the barrel will not have worn very much (if at all) since the gun was used in the crime, so a bullet or case from the crime scene can be matched to newly fired ones in the crime lab. But, what if the gun was shot several hundred times since the gun was manufactured and it was compared only to newly manufactured gun's results? Then there would not be a match. It is my understanding, and I could be wrong, that most gun owners shoot about 100 rounds per gun per year. This is enough to degrade the accuracy of the barrel in 10 to 20 years (the accuracy being degraded by barrel wear). And long before the accuracy is degraded, the ballistic fingerprint of the firearm will be changed.
So far we have just been discussing the wear and tear caused by the bullet on the barrel (specifically on the lands), but there is other ways for the pattern of markings on a bullet to vary. Copper or lead fouling occurs when bullets with outer shells of lead or copper are fired from a gun. The relatively soft lead or copper is removed from the bullet by the rifling where it becomes logged in the grooves. Heat and pressure from additional firings weld the metals to the barrel and work-harden them. Eventually the grooves of the barrel will become clogged with these metals and will no longer engage the bullet, thus leaving no pattern of markings on it. Long before this occurs the fingerprint of the firearm will have changed significantly.
In addition to fouling of the barrel, routine maintenance will change the ballistic fingerprint of a firearm. Cleaning rods often come in contact with and scratch the rifling. Solvents are routinely poured down the barrel to remove fouling, and they remove some of the barrel as well. Rust, whether caused by neglect or older, corrosive ammunition, can certainly remove some of the barrel and change the ballistic fingerprint.
The ballistic fingerprint can be changed by deliberate alteration of the barrel. There are legitimate reasons to do so: often when accuracy is degraded in a firearm, an inch or two will be removed from the gun and it will be re-crowned. Re-crowning changes the pattern of markings at the muzzle end of the barrel. This is often done on older guns that have been cleaned improperly, either allowed to rust a bit at the end of the barrel, or from scratches from a cleaning rod. In addition to legitimate barrel alterations, a criminal could take a few swipes with a round file and permanently alter the ballistic fingerprint of any firearm.
While we have been focusing mainly on the barrel, the other parts of the firearm that contribute to ballistic fingerprints (the firing pin, ejector, extractor, and bolt) are all subject to high pressure and heat, as well as cleaning solvents, and will change over time, altering the ballistic fingerprint.
So far we have just looked at false negatives, that is, that a firearm will not match it's own record in the ballistic fingerprinting database. We must also take a moment and look at false positives. It is possible that a firearm's ballistic fingerprint will change over time and will then match the fingerprint of another firearm. A few years ago when I was working in San Francisco, I remember there being quite an uproar over inaccuracies in AIDS testing. The tests being used had something like a 0.1 percent error, meaning 1 out of every 1000 tests came back with the wrong results. The concern was not so much over false negatives, but false positives. Several people embarked on expensive, risky treatments for a disease that they did not have while others had committed suicide or made other life altering changes. We see in the news quite often how peoples lives are changed when they are accused of a crime. The stigma can be quite damaging and long lasting. Look at Richard Jewell, the guard accused of the Atlanta Olympic bombings. The very fact that we both remember his name, or at least remember the circumstances of the case, says something. If someone were falsely accused of being the DC sniper, or of a similar crime, the notoriety would be extremely hard to live down. Especially if the accusation had scientific "proof" backing it up.
It is because of the malleable nature of "ballistic fingerprints" that I think we should not spend the money to examine, record, and maintain records of the ballistic fingerprint of each firearm. I think that any such system would be fundamentally flawed and would be a huge waste of money, time, and resources all of which could be better used on effective existing law enforcement tools, or for the hiring of additional officers. Or hell, let's just take a blood (DNA) sample and fingerprint of every child born and keep it in a big ol' database. That way if any future crimes are committed, and any DNA or fingerprints are left behind, we'll know exactly who committed the crime.
I thought I'd take a moment and point out that guns are not "only used for death" as several posters have implied/stated.
Some people collect guns. Some collect US Civil War era guns (http://www.n-ssa.org/), some WWI, WWII-Korean War, guns of the US, guns of Germany, guns made in France (http://pub109.ezboard.com/fparallaxscurioandrelic firearmsforumsfrm32), guns designed originally in Belgium (http://www.falfiles.com), etc. There are even people who collect deactivated guns (http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/walk/gen55/dgca/index.htm) I happen to have a fondness for World War II era bolt-action rifles myself, but to each his (or her) own. A lot of collectors never fire their guns, but many do. Some enjoy hunting with old firearms(http://pub109.ezboard.com/fparallaxscurio andrelicfirearmsforumsfrm7), others just enjoy taking them to a range and shooting them in competitions(http://pub109.ezboard.com/fparallaxsc urioandrelicfirearmsforumsfrm73).
Lots of people own firearms so they can reenact various wars, mostly the US Civil War, but WWI and WWII as well. A lot of people are getting into Cowboy Action Shooting, where you dress like a cowboy and shoot old(or old style) handguns, rifles and shotguns in competitions. (http://www.civilwar.com/linkre.htm http://www.reenactor.net/ww1/ww1reenact_ring.htm l http://www.io.com/~tog/ http://www.cowboyactionshooting.com/pages/Facts& Figures.html)
Lots of people do own guns for hunting or personal defense, and I guess that falls under "only used for death." Animal Control personnel, Police, FBI, the Millitary, Game Wardens, Security Guards, Bodyguards, Postal Inspectors, some IRS Agents, and Bounty Hunters are amongst this group of people.
While on that note, handguns are not just used for death purposes. Sure, hunters do use them to well...hunt, but that's kinda rare. Organizations like the USPSA regularly hold pistol competitions (http://www.uspsa.org/). But you don't have to hunt or enter into competitions to have a legitimate sporting use of pistols. I shoot mine at the range (at paper targets from about 10-100 feet out) or from time to time on the ranch plinking at tin cans or coke bottles out in the fields.
Of course, rifles and shotguns are used in competions as well as just general plinking. I recently went to a John C Garand Memorial Rifle Match where 90% of the contestants used WWII-era M1 Garands (the rifle used by most of the US's troops in WWII). The winner of that match, with a score of 460 out of 500 points, shooting from 200 yards, was an older gentleman, in his 70s, shooting a gun made in 1942. It was my first match, and I was using an Indian manufactured bolt action rifle, made in 1968, (which hurt like hell after shooting 60 rounds, let me tell you) and I finished with a respectable 255.
And just people getting together to have a good time and a day at the range http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&t hreadid=58156
My point is, guns aren't just for hunting and killing people, they are used all the time as recreational devices. I know some people find that hard to understand, but I don't understand how people think playing golf is fun. Diffrn't strokes for diffrn't folks, I guess.
You must not. Someone or something has to click I agree, but it does _not_ have to be the player. I could be the players young child, the dog, one of those birds that always bobs up and down, it could be anything. That is why it is _not_ binding, they have no proof what so ever that you, the player, actually agreed to anything. This is why in the real world things have to be signed. Then you can prove that someone has agreed to something. With a click through you have no idea who is agreeing.
I've always wonderd about this. How does the blind person see what's on the screen? I have never seen a ATM that reads what's on the screen, so how does the blind person know? How do they know if they've entered the wrong passcode? Or if the machine is out of service? Or out of money? Or if they are too low on cash? None of that is spelled out in braile.
Get the shit done and don't put it off as something to do later, and you won't get sued. If you do and you are sued later, you've made a good faith effort to try to be accomodating. You can't please everyone and you can't expect every situation to be convered but you can try your best.
Bullshit.
Several years ago, waaaaaay back in the 90s, we decided to install a ramp at our church. My dad, myself, and a few men from the church spent a weekend and built a ramp that sloped from the street to the sidewalk, about 4 feet away, and it was about 3 feet wide, wider than the wheelchair we had available to us to use as a guide. None of us had any problems getting up the ramp, and none of the congregation had any complaints either.
However, a few weeks after it was built we had a very irrate woman stop by and bitch about the ramp. I happened to be there at the time, and as I had helped build it I was asked to talk to her. She informed me that the ramp did not meet ADA specs and she was going to sue. I asked what the specs were, she said the main thing was that it was not painted red, and there where no grooves cut into the ramp to aid in traction. I didn't see the big deal was with the color, wheelchair people aren't sight impaired, the grooves sounded like a good idea, so I told her we'd make the chages. She got even more upset and said she'd sue anyway.
The next weekend went went back out and cut grooves into the ramp about an inch and a half apart and about an eigth of an inch wide. Afterwards we painted the whole thing red.
Sure enough the next week we were sued.
Both our attorney and the opposing one said that the fact that we made changes indicated that we were aware that we were at fault, and indicated that we'd loose the trial because of that. So we settled out of court. The opposing attorney wanted a outrageous amount for his time and wanted us to tear down the ramp and build it again, this time correctly from the start. They gave us the specs to use, don't remember them off the top of my head, but I do remember we couldn't have a vertical wall on the ramp, it had to blend in smoothly with the grass. Why, I don't know, who wants to roll their wheelchair into the grass?
So we tore the ramp down and rebuilt it. But, since we rebuilt it before the agreement was signed, it didn't matter. We had to tear it down and rebuild it again after we signed the settlement agreement. It was, to me, utter bullshit, but the lawyers on both sides agreed that we had to do it, so what could we do?
All in all we spent around $100,000, between our lawyers and theirs, the cost of the materials was basically nothing, and labour was free, although jackhammer rental was kinda expensive, but compared to lawyer's fees was nothing. And all this because we were trying to be nice and build a ramp in front of the entrance, so that those in wheelchairs didn't have to use the service entrance in the back (nice wide ramp, sturdy handrail, been there for ages)
So don't tell me that "Get the shit done and don't put it off as something to do later, and you won't get sued. "
Now, as to the article in question:
"We are quite tired of being shut out of some areas of life,"
Are the blind people unable to use the telephone to make reservations? Are they forced, somehow, to use the internet? I looked in the phone book (I assume that braile version are avialble) and found this number for Southwest Airlines:
1-800-IFLYSWA (1-800-435-9792)
I called the number and they said they could answer any flight information questions I had and you could make a reservation there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (I did not think to ask if they were open on holidays)
The American flag starts it's stripes with a red stripe, and it ends with a red stripe. It does not start with a white stripe, as the icon on slashdot does, nor does it contain only 12 stripes. The American flag contains 13 stripes: 7 red, 6 white. The slashdot icon contains 6 stripes of each color.
A year ago I was on a boat in the Al Jafad dry dock in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. We'd just gone up to the bridge to use the cell phone (better reception up there). One of the guys, Walt, was talking to his wife when she said that a plane had hit the world trade center. She had no other information, we just assumed some Cessna pilot got lost or flew too close, and we were not too worried. A few minutes later we went downstairs to the mess for dinner and turned on the TV. That's when we saw the second plane hit, and we knew we were in deep shit.
Quite frankly I was very worried about our safety. We stayed on the boat for about two days. The US consulate was closed, so there was no where for us to go to if we got in trouble. We sat for hours in the mess watching CNN with the sound off. We later found out that the sound was off because the government of the UAE was censoring the broadcast. This was a new experience to me, but not to the guys on the boat. I was outraged, but they would say "Mr. Mike, they do this to protect us. Obviously the people are telling lies or speaking bad about Islam, otherwise they would be allowed to speak." And they were serious. Luckily CNN was running text along the bottom of the screen, so we were able to get a decent idea of what was going on.
We saw on CNN the joyous celebrations all over the world, so when we did finally leave the boat I made sure I had a flare gun (I stole one from the bridge) and a 6 inch chefs knife from the kitchen with me, in addition to my usual pocketknives (a Bob Lum Spyderco and a Leatherman Side Clip). I also made sure that the other guys were armed with knives as well (mostly 4 inch Opinels). Non-citizens are not allowed to own/possess guns, stun guns, or pepper spray in the UAE, so knives were all we could carry legally to protect ourselves should the need arise.
It felt odd when we'd go out. Even before the attacks we stood out as we were all taller than the vast majority of the population and we were obviously foreigners, both in dress and face. For two months after the attacks, up until the time we went into Afganistan, people would come up to me on the street and ask if I was an American. At first I did not know what to say, so that first day I said I was a Texan. Most people did not know what a Texan was, but assumed I was not American, so they would then go on about how terrible the attacks were and there was an urgency when they spoke when they'd tell me that Islam was not the cause, that the men who did this were madmen. One very nice older Arabic man had been to Texas, and when I told him I was Texan he hugged me and cried, it was very touching. He and most people I met were outraged at the attacks, furious that men did it in the name of Islam, and worried that the US would destroy the world in retribution. Everyone asked if I knew anyone lost in the attacks, and asked about my family.
Of course, many people I met, including all of the Arabs on the boat with us, were convinced that it was an Israeli attack. As one crewman put it, "It is against Islam to murder innocents, therefore no Muslim could do this. It must be the Jews." I was shocked at this attitude but did not know how to respond to it. Later on when it became more clear that it was indeed Bin Laden's group, the same guys said, "It is too difficult, what they did. Only a nation could do this, not one man or a few men. It must have been Mossad or China, no Arab could plan this." This was kinda funny, because all the Arabs on the boat were lazy fucks, and I certainly could not see any of them planing a good meal let alone a simultaneous hijacking. However, this was not proof, yet they accepted it as such. They firmly believed that if they could not do it, then no other Arab could. This was an attitude that I would find not only on the boat but all over, and is one that still perplexes me.
When US troops went into Afganistan, I became real worried. No longer did people smile and stop me on the street to express their condolences over the attacks. Instead I got angry glares and scowls. I went back to carrying the flare gun and chefs knife in my backpack we I went out. Several people spat at me. Luckily nothing happened, although I did have one Afghani challenge me to a duel. He had a sword, which he had drawn, but I had just purchased a very large Pakastani meat cleaver. It weighs about 10 pounds and is huge. (I figured it'd be good for dressing game) So I took the cleaver out of my pack and said, "Ok." His sword was a crappy one, like one of those you'd see in a sharper image catalog for $40, so I wasn't too worried. I figured I'd whack him upside the head with the flat of the blade and knock some sense into him. A large crowd had gathered, and luckily nothing happened. We agreed to be friends even though our countries might not be. I tried to explain, and I think I did get through to him, that the US was not pissed at Afghanis, that we were after Bin Laden and the Taliban was protecting him. If the Taliban gave him up we'd leave Afghanistan alone. He did not like the Taliban, that's why he was in Dubai and not Kabul, but he had family back home and was worried. The whole situation got better a few days later when it was announced that the US was dropping food and supplies all over Afghanistan, but still the scowls and frowns remained.
After visiting the middle east, I realize how much better off most Americans are than the rest of the world. Especially in the stuff we take for granted, like freedom of religion and of the press. I was not allowed to hear certain things nor was I allowed to say anything bad or even remotely construed as being negative about the government in the UAE. Not just, "don't say that," but the police would come and take me away. The secret police are everywhere and you never know who is listening. My entertainment was censored. Books, newspapers, magazines, CDs, video games, and movies are all censored before they are allowed to be released (for example the whole subplot about the arab arms dealer in the brad Pit movie Spy Game was removed). I was not allowed to practice my religion. I was forbidden to bring a bible in to the country, or to wear a cross around my neck, and there are only about 4 or 5 churches in the entire country (and just try finding a taxi that'll drive you to one of them). I was not allowed to eat what I wanted, nor drink what I wanted. Not that I'm a big drinker or a big pork eater, but after a few months I really wanted to sit down, watch an American Football game, drink a beer, and eat a plate of bacon.
Anyway, now here I am a year later, back in the states. Every flight I've taken since last September I've been searched by hand, my luggage has been searched by hand, and once in Amsterdam our flight was delayed while they pulled out my luggage and made me go through it while a bunch of nervous guys with MP5s and Glocks watched. I gotta tell you, though, that all that did not make me feel safer, in fact it made me feel less safe. I can't help but think that a semi-determined terrorist/hijacker could still very easily get a weapon on board, but I, and most of the other passengers, would be completely disarmed as we are law-abiding, and this would make it much more difficult to stop the hijacking. A sharpened piece of glass, plastic, or stone will not be detected by any metal detector, but it would be a very effective cutting instrument.
So what am I doing a year later? Not much. I watched some of the ceremony in New York and Washington. Here at the office I've been listening to NPR all day. I took off early for lunch and went to a memorial service at my church. I'm usually not big on songs, mainly as my voice just sucks, but today we sang one I don't remember ever singing before. #437 in the Methodist hymnal, "This is My Song." I thought the words were very nice, and appropriate, and well, here they are.
This is My Song Lyrics: Lloyd Stone Music: Jean Sibelius
This is my song, O God of all the nations, a song of peace for lands afar and mine. This is my home, the country where my heart is; here are my hopes, my dreams my holy shrine; but other hearts in other lands are beating with hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.
My country's skies are bluer than the ocean, and sunlight beams on cloverleaf and pine; but other lands have sunlight too, and clover, and skies are everywhere as blue as mine. O hear my song, thou God of all the Nations, a song of peace for their land and for mine.
After work I plan on stopping by the indoor gun range and putting a lot of holes into a bin laden target (http://www.reloadbench.com/photo/obl8x11.jpg). I went to an outdoor range this past Saturday but didn't get to spend much time shooting. Then I'll go home, hug my family, call the ones I can't hug, maybe go get a beer with some friends.
Slashdot Mirror
I never have liked that logic. For several reasons. One is that the framers also could not have imagined the Internet, or desktop publishing. Back in their day freedom of the press meant freedom for rich white men who were able to afford to buy a printing press and the paper and ink and technicians needed to run it. They did not imagine that everyone would be able to send out a message from the privacy of their homes to anyone in the world. So does that mean that the internet is not protected by the first ammendment?
Second, at the time the Constitution was written it was possible for a man trianed with a bow to shoot farther (if he had an English Longbow), faster, and much more accurately than a man trained with a musket. The main reason we went to muskets was that they required less training. A random, previously untrained person could, with a little instruction have a hope of hitting a man coming at him marching in colum. Whereas a random, previously untrained person would need lots of training to do the same with a bow. Plus a musket could be used in foul weather and when fitted with a bayonet could be used as a pike or as a club. Bows do not make good clubs or pikes. While a bow is not quite the same as a class III firearm, they were, in their day, the equivalent.
BTW, I got to shoot a Class III rifle the other day, an old WWII M1A1 Thompson. It was a blast!
-Gandalf23
The class was not bad, it was much like I remember driver's ed to be: lot's of talk about what could go wrong, what the laws are, what could go wrong, the effects of bullets on people (think about the movies you watched in driver's ed like Blood Flows Red on the Highway), stuff like that. And yeah, just like with the driver's exam, if you can't pass it you should not be toting a gun around in public.
As for gun fingerprinting, take a look at a post I made on it here
I think it's fairly non-paranoid. To sum up, I think that wear and tear on guns will make the fingerprinting useless because unlike people fingerprints, they will change over time and with use. Imagine if your fingerprints changed slightly every time you used them. How would that affect the current fingerprintng system?
-Gandalf23
In Texas to have a license to carry a concealed handgun you have to take a mandatory 8 hour class and shoot your gun at a range and have the score equal some number or higher. To get a drivers license you just show up and apply if you are over 18. To save costs a few years ago they stopped having the DPS driving with new applicants under 18 years old as long as they showed that they had gone to a driver's ed class and passed. So, at least in Texas, to carry a concealed handgun it takes more class time, and a practical exam, than to get a driver's license. And there are many more restrictions on where you can go than with a drivers license.
Car inspections are to make sure that the car you drive on public roads passes a certain safety standard. And increasingly they are caring much less about the safety of the car and focusing almost exclusively on emissions. When take the concealed carry class in Texas, at least the one I went to, the instructors check out your firearm to make sure that it is functional and safe.
Car registration is a tax on car owners to help pay for the maintenance of public roads. Will a gun registration help pay for the funding and building of public shooting ranges?
As an aside, I thought I'd list a few things that they pointed out at the class:
Always carry pepper spray.
Lot's of confrontations can be ended quickly and relatively harmlessly by the quick use of pepper spray. Scary guy hanging out at your car at night, spray him. Drunk guy follows you out of the bar and will nto take NO for an answer, spray him. This was mainly aimed at the women on the group, but it's good for the guys as well. No one wants to kill someone if they don't have to.
Never ever ever shot a warning shot over someones head or into the air
We see this all the time in movies and on tv. BUT you do not know where that bullet is going to come down. If you feel you have to shoot and do not want to shoot a person, aim at the ground in front of you. Yes, the shot may ricohcet, but most of the energy in the bullet will be expended by the contact with the ground. You'll get the point across and no one will be injured by accident.
-Gandalf23
My father and I run a small machine shop here in Fort Worth, Texas, and I have been involved in machining and woodworking since the early eighties. I am familiar with metal tools, and with how tools will, with normal use, become worn out. Firearms, in this instance, are like any other metal tool, they will wear out with use. Two examples of tool wear, which I'm sure you are familiar with are a car and a knife. In a car, a small amount of gasoline and air is mixed into the cylinder. This mixture is ignited and the resulting explosion moves the piston which causes the car to move (basically). The piston is usually coated in oil, and both the piston and the cylinder are hardened, yet, through normal use, the piston wears away at the cylinder, thus enlarging it and causing problems. Firearms are similar: there is a small explosion which propels the bullet through the barrel just like the piston and cylinder in a car. However, the barrel does not have any oil in it to help lubricate the bullets passage and retard the erosion. In fact, oil in the barrel can cause catastrophic failure. A firearm can blow up due to oil (or anything else for that matter) in the barrel, so while barrels are lubed for cleaning, they are wiped clean before firing. Every time a bullet passes through the barrel a little bit of the barrel is removed. The amount is small, but over time it adds up. You can see this for yourself by looking at an old rifle, say a WWII-era Mauser or Enfield (or any old hunting rifle) and comparing the rifling (the lands and groves in the barrel) to that of a newly produced rifle of the same caliber. There will be a visible difference. This is common: people who shoot these older rifles often use bullets that are slightly oversize so that they will engage the rifling.
BTW, if you are not familliar with what the rifling on a gun looks like, rent a James Bond movie. The opening, when James walks out and he's spotlighted and then he turns to the camera and shoots, that spotlight is you looking down the barrel of a gun at him. Notice the spiraly thingys? That's the rifling of the barrel.
A friend of the family recently asked me to take a look at a pistol purchased by his father in the late 30s. He grew up using this .22 to hunt small game and shoot at tin cans on their farm. After a thorough cleaning to get out the grime, dust, and fouling, I used a bore light to examine the barrel and discovered that there was practically no rifling left on this gun, it was worn down to almost nothing and I had trouble seeing the rifling. I asked my friend if he had any idea how often the gun had been shot. He said he did not know, but estimated it at several thousand rounds. Certainly this particular .22 pistol would not match any previous ballistic fingerprint records made of it. Ballistic fingerprinting will work perfectly as long as no one ever fires their firearm.
I'm sure you've used knives in your kitchen to prepare a meal. I am also sure that unless you have the new Ginsu knives, you have sharpened those knives several times. Knives must be sharpened because even though the food is much, much softer than the steel knife, a small amount of the blade is removed every time the knife is used, which causes the knife to become dull. Removing more metal from the blade, leaving behind an edge able to cut easily again, sharpens the knife. But, each time you sharpen the blade, more metal is removed, until eventually, there is no more knife left. I have a paring knife that belonged to my grandmother, which I am sure she used quite often. From the little bit of metal that remains protruding from, and the shape of, the handle, one can see that the knife originally was a little over an inch wide. Now, after years of use and sharpening, the knife measures barely a quarter of an inch across. While a dramatic example, this clearly illustrates the wear that knife blades are susceptible to. Similarly, firearm barrels can be worn out or eroded through use. You might say that the metal used in my grandmother's knife was substandard or poor, and you are probably correct. But many older guns, and some of the low end newer guns, are made of similar metals, hardened to a similar Rockwell hardness.
It is the malleability of the firearm's barrel that I am concerned about. As I understand it, ballistic fingerprinting works by firing a bullet through a newly produced firearm, with the resulting case and bullet kept on file. When an empty case or fired bullet is recovered at a crime scene it is checked against this record to get a match. This works great when a gun is recovered shortly after a crime was committed as the barrel will not have worn very much (if at all) since the gun was used in the crime, so a bullet or case from the crime scene can be matched to newly fired ones in the crime lab. But, what if the gun was shot several hundred times since the gun was manufactured and it was compared only to newly manufactured gun's results? Then there would not be a match. It is my understanding, and I could be wrong, that most gun owners shoot about 100 rounds per gun per year. This is enough to degrade the accuracy of the barrel in 10 to 20 years (the accuracy being degraded by barrel wear). And long before the accuracy is degraded, the ballistic fingerprint of the firearm will be changed.
So far we have just been discussing the wear and tear caused by the bullet on the barrel (specifically on the lands), but there is other ways for the pattern of markings on a bullet to vary. Copper or lead fouling occurs when bullets with outer shells of lead or copper are fired from a gun. The relatively soft lead or copper is removed from the bullet by the rifling where it becomes logged in the grooves. Heat and pressure from additional firings weld the metals to the barrel and work-harden them. Eventually the grooves of the barrel will become clogged with these metals and will no longer engage the bullet, thus leaving no pattern of markings on it. Long before this occurs the fingerprint of the firearm will have changed significantly. In addition to fouling of the barrel, routine maintenance will change the ballistic fingerprint of a firearm. Cleaning rods often come in contact with and scratch the rifling. Solvents are routinely poured down the barrel to remove fouling, and they remove some of the barrel as well. Rust, whether caused by neglect or older, corrosive ammunition, can certainly remove some of the barrel and change the ballistic fingerprint.
The ballistic fingerprint can be changed by deliberate alteration of the barrel. There are legitimate reasons to do so: often when accuracy is degraded in a firearm, an inch or two will be removed from the gun and it will be re-crowned. Re-crowning changes the pattern of markings at the muzzle end of the barrel. This is often done on older guns that have been cleaned improperly, either allowed to rust a bit at the end of the barrel, or from scratches from a cleaning rod. In addition to legitimate barrel alterations, a criminal could take a few swipes with a round file and permanently alter the ballistic fingerprint of any firearm. While we have been focusing mainly on the barrel, the other parts of the firearm that contribute to ballistic fingerprints (the firing pin, ejector, extractor, and bolt) are all subject to high pressure and heat, as well as cleaning solvents, and will change over time, altering the ballistic fingerprint.
So far we have just looked at false negatives, that is, that a firearm will not match it's own record in the ballistic fingerprinting database. We must also take a moment and look at false positives. It is possible that a firearm's ballistic fingerprint will change over time and will then match the fingerprint of another firearm. A few years ago when I was working in San Francisco, I remember there being quite an uproar over inaccuracies in AIDS testing. The tests being used had something like a 0.1 percent error, meaning 1 out of every 1000 tests came back with the wrong results. The concern was not so much over false negatives, but false positives. Several people embarked on expensive, risky treatments for a disease that they did not have while others had committed suicide or made other life altering changes. We see in the news quite often how peoples lives are changed when they are accused of a crime. The stigma can be quite damaging and long lasting. Look at Richard Jewell, the guard accused of the Atlanta Olympic bombings. The very fact that we both remember his name, or at least remember the circumstances of the case, says something. If someone were falsely accused of being the DC sniper, or of a similar crime, the notoriety would be extremely hard to live down. Especially if the accusation had scientific "proof" backing it up. It is because of the malleable nature of "ballistic fingerprints" that I think we should not spend the money to examine, record, and maintain records of the ballistic fingerprint of each firearm. I think that any such system would be fundamentally flawed and would be a huge waste of money, time, and resources all of which could be better used on effective existing law enforcement tools, or for the hiring of additional officers. Or hell, let's just take a blood (DNA) sample and fingerprint of every child born and keep it in a big ol' database. That way if any future crimes are committed, and any DNA or fingerprints are left behind, we'll know exactly who committed the crime.
-Gandalf23
Some people collect guns. Some collect US Civil War era guns (http://www.n-ssa.org/), some WWI, WWII-Korean War, guns of the US, guns of Germany, guns made in France (http://pub109.ezboard.com/fparallaxscurioandrelic firearmsforumsfrm32), guns designed originally in Belgium (http://www.falfiles.com), etc. There are even people who collect deactivated guns (http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/walk/gen55/dgca /index.htm) I happen to have a fondness for World War II era bolt-action rifles myself, but to each his (or her) own. A lot of collectors never fire their guns, but many do. Some enjoy hunting with old firearms(http://pub109.ezboard.com/fparallaxscurio andrelicfirearmsforumsfrm7), others just enjoy taking them to a range and shooting them in competitions(http://pub109.ezboard.com/fparallaxsc urioandrelicfirearmsforumsfrm73).
Lots of people own firearms so they can reenact various wars, mostly the US Civil War, but WWI and WWII as well. A lot of people are getting into Cowboy Action Shooting, where you dress like a cowboy and shoot old(or old style) handguns, rifles and shotguns in competitions. (http://www.civilwar.com/linkre.htmm l& Figures.html)
http://www.reenactor.net/ww1/ww1reenact_ring.ht
http://www.io.com/~tog/
http://www.cowboyactionshooting.com/pages/Facts
Lots of people do own guns for hunting or personal defense, and I guess that falls under "only used for death." Animal Control personnel, Police, FBI, the Millitary, Game Wardens, Security Guards, Bodyguards, Postal Inspectors, some IRS Agents, and Bounty Hunters are amongst this group of people.
While on that note, handguns are not just used for death purposes. Sure, hunters do use them to well...hunt, but that's kinda rare. Organizations like the USPSA regularly hold pistol competitions (http://www.uspsa.org/). But you don't have to hunt or enter into competitions to have a legitimate sporting use of pistols. I shoot mine at the range (at paper targets from about 10-100 feet out) or from time to time on the ranch plinking at tin cans or coke bottles out in the fields.
Of course, rifles and shotguns are used in competions as well as just general plinking. I recently went to a John C Garand Memorial Rifle Match where 90% of the contestants used WWII-era M1 Garands (the rifle used by most of the US's troops in WWII). The winner of that match, with a score of 460 out of 500 points, shooting from 200 yards, was an older gentleman, in his 70s, shooting a gun made in 1942. It was my first match, and I was using an Indian manufactured bolt action rifle, made in 1968, (which hurt like hell after shooting 60 rounds, let me tell you) and I finished with a respectable 255.
There are all kinds of firearm competitions:
3-gun matches http://www.3gunmatch.com/whatistac.htm
IDPA http://www.idpa.com/
USPSA http://www.uspsa.org/
50 caliber shooting http://www.fcsa.org/
Single Action Shooting http://www.sassnet.com/
Bullseye Pistol http://www.bullseyepistol.com/
Single Stack Classic http://www.1911society.org/
People that shoot at explosives (from a long way away) http://www.boomershoot.org/
Conventional Pistol Competition http://www.nrahq.org/compete/conventional.asp
High Power Rifle Competition http://www.nrahq.org/compete/highpower.asp
Smallbore Rifle Competition http://www.nrahq.org/compete/smallbore.asp
Silhouette Competition http://www.nrahq.org/compete/silhouette.asp
Blackpowder Competitions http://www.nrahq.org/compete/blackpowder.asp
Action Pistol http://www.sarandpclub.org/SpecialEvents.htm
Civil War Skirmishing http://www.n-ssa.org/
And just people getting together to have a good time and a day at the range http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&t hreadid=58156
My point is, guns aren't just for hunting and killing people, they are used all the time as recreational devices. I know some people find that hard to understand, but I don't understand how people think playing golf is fun. Diffrn't strokes for diffrn't folks, I guess.
-Gandalf23
You must not. Someone or something has to click I agree, but it does _not_ have to be the player. I could be the players young child, the dog, one of those birds that always bobs up and down, it could be anything. That is why it is _not_ binding, they have no proof what so ever that you, the player, actually agreed to anything. This is why in the real world things have to be signed. Then you can prove that someone has agreed to something. With a click through you have no idea who is agreeing.
-gandalf23@work
Bullshit.
Several years ago, waaaaaay back in the 90s, we decided to install a ramp at our church. My dad, myself, and a few men from the church spent a weekend and built a ramp that sloped from the street to the sidewalk, about 4 feet away, and it was about 3 feet wide, wider than the wheelchair we had available to us to use as a guide. None of us had any problems getting up the ramp, and none of the congregation had any complaints either.
However, a few weeks after it was built we had a very irrate woman stop by and bitch about the ramp. I happened to be there at the time, and as I had helped build it I was asked to talk to her. She informed me that the ramp did not meet ADA specs and she was going to sue. I asked what the specs were, she said the main thing was that it was not painted red, and there where no grooves cut into the ramp to aid in traction. I didn't see the big deal was with the color, wheelchair people aren't sight impaired, the grooves sounded like a good idea, so I told her we'd make the chages. She got even more upset and said she'd sue anyway.
The next weekend went went back out and cut grooves into the ramp about an inch and a half apart and about an eigth of an inch wide. Afterwards we painted the whole thing red.
Sure enough the next week we were sued.
Both our attorney and the opposing one said that the fact that we made changes indicated that we were aware that we were at fault, and indicated that we'd loose the trial because of that. So we settled out of court. The opposing attorney wanted a outrageous amount for his time and wanted us to tear down the ramp and build it again, this time correctly from the start. They gave us the specs to use, don't remember them off the top of my head, but I do remember we couldn't have a vertical wall on the ramp, it had to blend in smoothly with the grass. Why, I don't know, who wants to roll their wheelchair into the grass?
So we tore the ramp down and rebuilt it. But, since we rebuilt it before the agreement was signed, it didn't matter. We had to tear it down and rebuild it again after we signed the settlement agreement. It was, to me, utter bullshit, but the lawyers on both sides agreed that we had to do it, so what could we do?
All in all we spent around $100,000, between our lawyers and theirs, the cost of the materials was basically nothing, and labour was free, although jackhammer rental was kinda expensive, but compared to lawyer's fees was nothing. And all this because we were trying to be nice and build a ramp in front of the entrance, so that those in wheelchairs didn't have to use the service entrance in the back (nice wide ramp, sturdy handrail, been there for ages)
So don't tell me that "Get the shit done and don't put it off as something to do later, and you won't get sued. "
Now, as to the article in question: "We are quite tired of being shut out of some areas of life,"
Are the blind people unable to use the telephone to make reservations? Are they forced, somehow, to use the internet? I looked in the phone book (I assume that braile version are avialble) and found this number for Southwest Airlines: 1-800-IFLYSWA (1-800-435-9792)
I called the number and they said they could answer any flight information questions I had and you could make a reservation there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (I did not think to ask if they were open on holidays)
-gandalf23@work
Picture of a correct American flag
-Gandalf23@work
A year ago I was on a boat in the Al Jafad dry dock in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. We'd just gone up to the bridge to use the cell phone (better reception up there). One of the guys, Walt, was talking to his wife when she said that a plane had hit the world trade center. She had no other information, we just assumed some Cessna pilot got lost or flew too close, and we were not too worried. A few minutes later we went downstairs to the mess for dinner and turned on the TV. That's when we saw the second plane hit, and we knew we were in deep shit.
Quite frankly I was very worried about our safety. We stayed on the boat for about two days. The US consulate was closed, so there was no where for us to go to if we got in trouble. We sat for hours in the mess watching CNN with the sound off. We later found out that the sound was off because the government of the UAE was censoring the broadcast. This was a new experience to me, but not to the guys on the boat. I was outraged, but they would say "Mr. Mike, they do this to protect us. Obviously the people are telling lies or speaking bad about Islam, otherwise they would be allowed to speak." And they were serious. Luckily CNN was running text along the bottom of the screen, so we were able to get a decent idea of what was going on.
We saw on CNN the joyous celebrations all over the world, so when we did finally leave the boat I made sure I had a flare gun (I stole one from the bridge) and a 6 inch chefs knife from the kitchen with me, in addition to my usual pocketknives (a Bob Lum Spyderco and a Leatherman Side Clip). I also made sure that the other guys were armed with knives as well (mostly 4 inch Opinels). Non-citizens are not allowed to own/possess guns, stun guns, or pepper spray in the UAE, so knives were all we could carry legally to protect ourselves should the need arise.
It felt odd when we'd go out. Even before the attacks we stood out as we were all taller than the vast majority of the population and we were obviously foreigners, both in dress and face. For two months after the attacks, up until the time we went into Afganistan, people would come up to me on the street and ask if I was an American. At first I did not know what to say, so that first day I said I was a Texan. Most people did not know what a Texan was, but assumed I was not American, so they would then go on about how terrible the attacks were and there was an urgency when they spoke when they'd tell me that Islam was not the cause, that the men who did this were madmen. One very nice older Arabic man had been to Texas, and when I told him I was Texan he hugged me and cried, it was very touching. He and most people I met were outraged at the attacks, furious that men did it in the name of Islam, and worried that the US would destroy the world in retribution. Everyone asked if I knew anyone lost in the attacks, and asked about my family.
Of course, many people I met, including all of the Arabs on the boat with us, were convinced that it was an Israeli attack. As one crewman put it, "It is against Islam to murder innocents, therefore no Muslim could do this. It must be the Jews." I was shocked at this attitude but did not know how to respond to it. Later on when it became more clear that it was indeed Bin Laden's group, the same guys said, "It is too difficult, what they did. Only a nation could do this, not one man or a few men. It must have been Mossad or China, no Arab could plan this." This was kinda funny, because all the Arabs on the boat were lazy fucks, and I certainly could not see any of them planing a good meal let alone a simultaneous hijacking. However, this was not proof, yet they accepted it as such. They firmly believed that if they could not do it, then no other Arab could. This was an attitude that I would find not only on the boat but all over, and is one that still perplexes me.
When US troops went into Afganistan, I became real worried. No longer did people smile and stop me on the street to express their condolences over the attacks. Instead I got angry glares and scowls. I went back to carrying the flare gun and chefs knife in my backpack we I went out. Several people spat at me. Luckily nothing happened, although I did have one Afghani challenge me to a duel. He had a sword, which he had drawn, but I had just purchased a very large Pakastani meat cleaver. It weighs about 10 pounds and is huge. (I figured it'd be good for dressing game) So I took the cleaver out of my pack and said, "Ok." His sword was a crappy one, like one of those you'd see in a sharper image catalog for $40, so I wasn't too worried. I figured I'd whack him upside the head with the flat of the blade and knock some sense into him. A large crowd had gathered, and luckily nothing happened. We agreed to be friends even though our countries might not be. I tried to explain, and I think I did get through to him, that the US was not pissed at Afghanis, that we were after Bin Laden and the Taliban was protecting him. If the Taliban gave him up we'd leave Afghanistan alone. He did not like the Taliban, that's why he was in Dubai and not Kabul, but he had family back home and was worried. The whole situation got better a few days later when it was announced that the US was dropping food and supplies all over Afghanistan, but still the scowls and frowns remained.
After visiting the middle east, I realize how much better off most Americans are than the rest of the world. Especially in the stuff we take for granted, like freedom of religion and of the press. I was not allowed to hear certain things nor was I allowed to say anything bad or even remotely construed as being negative about the government in the UAE. Not just, "don't say that," but the police would come and take me away. The secret police are everywhere and you never know who is listening. My entertainment was censored. Books, newspapers, magazines, CDs, video games, and movies are all censored before they are allowed to be released (for example the whole subplot about the arab arms dealer in the brad Pit movie Spy Game was removed). I was not allowed to practice my religion. I was forbidden to bring a bible in to the country, or to wear a cross around my neck, and there are only about 4 or 5 churches in the entire country (and just try finding a taxi that'll drive you to one of them). I was not allowed to eat what I wanted, nor drink what I wanted. Not that I'm a big drinker or a big pork eater, but after a few months I really wanted to sit down, watch an American Football game, drink a beer, and eat a plate of bacon.
Anyway, now here I am a year later, back in the states. Every flight I've taken since last September I've been searched by hand, my luggage has been searched by hand, and once in Amsterdam our flight was delayed while they pulled out my luggage and made me go through it while a bunch of nervous guys with MP5s and Glocks watched. I gotta tell you, though, that all that did not make me feel safer, in fact it made me feel less safe. I can't help but think that a semi-determined terrorist/hijacker could still very easily get a weapon on board, but I, and most of the other passengers, would be completely disarmed as we are law-abiding, and this would make it much more difficult to stop the hijacking. A sharpened piece of glass, plastic, or stone will not be detected by any metal detector, but it would be a very effective cutting instrument.
So what am I doing a year later? Not much. I watched some of the ceremony in New York and Washington. Here at the office I've been listening to NPR all day. I took off early for lunch and went to a memorial service at my church. I'm usually not big on songs, mainly as my voice just sucks, but today we sang one I don't remember ever singing before. #437 in the Methodist hymnal, "This is My Song." I thought the words were very nice, and appropriate, and well, here they are.
This is My Song
Lyrics: Lloyd Stone
Music: Jean Sibelius
This is my song, O God of all the nations,
a song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
here are my hopes, my dreams my holy shrine;
but other hearts in other lands are beating
with hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.
My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
and sunlight beams on cloverleaf and pine;
but other lands have sunlight too, and clover,
and skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
O hear my song, thou God of all the Nations,
a song of peace for their land and for mine.
After work I plan on stopping by the indoor gun range and putting a lot of holes into a bin laden target (http://www.reloadbench.com/photo/obl8x11.jpg). I went to an outdoor range this past Saturday but didn't get to spend much time shooting. Then I'll go home, hug my family, call the ones I can't hug, maybe go get a beer with some friends.
-Gandalf23