Price, UT Weather



Recent Visitors

Vegas, Baby!

Welcome to FABULOUS Las Vegas, Nevada

Welcome to FABULOUS Las Vegas, Nevada

Eiffel Tower - Paris, Las Vegas

Eiffel Tower - Paris, Las Vegas


Penn & Teller – Brilliantly Throw BS Flag Again

I just love this stuff :) It’s truly amazing at times just how ignorant some people are and how little they care about what they’re signing.


Gratuitious Plane Pr0n

Sandys in hot at Aviation Nation 2007

Sandys in hot at Aviation Nation 2007


Penn & Teller call BULLS**T On Gun Control

I’ve loved this episode from the moment I saw it :D


Blue Angels Pilots Must Control More Than Just the Jets

According to a Fox News Article, one of the pilots for the U.S. Navy Blue Angels has been removed from duty along with one other member of the team for “inappropriate conduct.”

I remember when the Commander, “Boss” as the #1 pilot is known, was removed temporarily for investigation many years ago. He was cleared and returned. Sounds like this is worse.

It’s a sad day for the Blues.


I Bet He Won’t Do THAT Again!

Absolutely classic :D A guy got fed up with the theft of McCain campaign signs from his yard so he rigged up a webcam and hooked the metal frame of one of his signs up to an electric pet fence energizer.

Here’s what happened:

Sadly, no legal charges will be filed against the thief or his parents, so the electrical charge will be all he gets.


Gun Control – Gotta Love the Half Hour News Hour

I’m still laughing :lol:


Rights and Restrictions – Part One

I’m a regular over at and I’ve written a lot over there on many subjects. I figured that I put quite a bit of effort into this post, why not put it in my blog where it should fit in very nicely :)

Great discussion here!

I’ve got to agree, but I also think that rights and freedoms need to be more broadly acknowledged and respected in some areas. My personal pet peeve is the Second Amendment and the way I feel it has been eviscerated over the years.

I am an expatriated Californian. I moved to Nevada almost four years ago – October 26, 2004 to be precise. I will not move back if I can at all help it. Their firearms laws are one of the reasons. In fact, they’re probably the biggest reason.

In California, there’s a waiting period and one new handgun a month. Here in Nevada, you can buy a gun and take it home the same day. If you live in Clark County, you have to register handguns (not great, but livable) and your first handgun has a 72 hour waiting period. I purchased my AK-47 at The Gun Store on Tropicana. After an instant (and I mean instant) background check, I handed over my Visa card and walked out with my rifle and two 30 round magazines. The rifle and each of the magazines are a felony to posses in California. I only have one handgun (had to wait for that one), but my next one will be an in and out one stop deal. I might buy two on my next trip. Nevada trusts its citizens.

In California, it’s very difficult to get a concealed carry permit and it’s illegal in most places to carry a gun openly. Nevada has “shall issue” permits for concealed carry – if they can’t find a legal reason you should not be allowed to have a carry permit, they have to give you one. It’s also legal to open carry anywhere in the state.

Switchblades are banned in California and are illegal to transport across state lines for commercial purchases under federal law. They’re not legal to carry in Nevada, but at least you can own them here Smile

And one of my favorite subjects – NFA weapons Twisted Evil These are weapons covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. These include machineguns, silencers, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, destructive devices, and “any other weapons” which are generally disguised firearms. There are ways to own these in California (actually ways to own anything – you have to have the money and connections), but again Nevada trusts its citizens. As long as you follow the federal law, fill out the Form 4, send in the fingerprints, passport photos, $200 check and all, and you get that transfer tax stamp on your copy of the Form 4 you’re good. You can have a silenced machinegun (yes, I want one but I don’t have $18,000), a mortar, or a fully functional main battle tank.

I know that in quite a bit of this country, many people would die of shock if they knew this to be true. People don’t realize what that Second Amendment means, regardless of what some politician or a group of lawyers in black robes says it means.

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.

Here’s a link to a high resolution scan of the original Bill of Rights:

I’ll let you decide for yourselves. My personal opinion is that it is meant to give the citizenry access to the full complement of military arms and that I should be able to have anything that isn’t classified – like an F-86 with live guns for example. Remember that in the time of the founders the militia was every able-bodied male between a certain set of ages. This is codified in law and has not been repealed, so is still in effect. They were expected to show up if mustered with their own arms and those arms were to be consistent with military arms in common use.

I have no problem discussing any of my lawful activities (not that there are unlawful activities to discuss Wink ) so I have no problem saying that I currently own my Yugo AK-47 (actually an M70AB1 with full wood stock), a Steyr M95, a Swiss K-31, a 1946 Mosin Nagant M44, a 1928 Mosin Nagant 91-30, a Marlin Model 60 .22, and a Hi-Point C9 pistol. I regularly go out in the desert and have fun shooting all of them Cool I will also have no problem using them in the defense of myself or others. I hope to purchase an AR-15 sometime in the near future, too.

There’s something that has always perplexed me about a license to carry concealed. If the “full faith and credit” clause means that every state has to accept every other state’s driver’s licenses, why doesn’t it mean the same thing for all other licenses – like concealed carry :?

If you’ve read this far, thanks! My closing thoughts: Firearms and knives are inanimate objects. They’re tools. I won’t do this because it’s not really responsible or even reasonable, but I could load every one of my guns, chamber a round in each, move the safeties to the fire position and nothing more will happen unless someone puts a few pounds of pressure on a trigger. I could lay every knife in existence on a massive surface and nothing will happen unless someone exerts their will on one. It is the intent and the actions of the user that are important. We hear that we need to ban this gun or that gun or carrying guns because of crime. That’s punishing the law abiding for the actions of the criminals. It’s treating citizens as if we’re third graders who all get their paste taken away because a couple of kids were eating theirs. Sure, these rights have limits. Nobody should be able to threaten another with a weapon without good cause. Nobody should be able to act recklessly with a weapon. We should still be allowed to own them and carry them as is our God given right which is acknowledged in the Constitution of the United States of America.


Gun Free Zones

Yeah, this is what some people would want you to believe. I guess some people think this really works.

I’m just glad someone made fun of them in a really great way :D


Rights and Restrictions – Part Two

Another post from that same discussion:

Great post there, TC :)

I got to thinking some more about it and there’s something that was brought to mind about the whole rights thing – oh yeah, guns too :wink;

The concept I wish to discuss is prior restraint and its connection to the aforementioned rights and their limitations. I can’t recall right now just where I read the article or who wrote it, but I recall the substance quite clearly.

First, let’s examine some things that people do which are not covered as rights. Practicing medicine or law is not a right. People must be licensed to do these things. Driving a car is not a right. Flying a plane is not a right. The government can by force of law prevent you from doing any of these things unless you jump through their hoops. They have a prior restraint on them. You must have a license to drive a car or fly a plane and those vehicles must be registered and insured.

Next, let’s look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty simple when you read it, right?

Following the First Amendment, we now examine the Second Amendment:

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.

Again, very simple and easy to understand.

Now we add in the concept of prior restraint as applied to the above amendments.

Many states (CA), counties (Clark County, NV) and cities (Chicago) have laws on the books requiring at least registration of handguns. Some of the other laws regarding firearms include not being able to carry a gun (or any other weapon) at all, requiring a license or a permit for ownership or purchase, restrictions on transportation, and severe limitations on the types of firearms or other weapons which can be legally owned. This is prior restraint on the free exercise of rights acknowledged in the Second Amendment.

People accept and applaud these prior restraints. They think they are made safer by them. No matter that felons are prohibited from ownership as they have proven themselves to be incapable of responsible conduct. It also doesn’t matter to them that by definition criminals do not care for these laws, thus the laws only serve to disarm the lawful in the face of the lawless. No, to them it does not matter that this God Given RIGHT which is recognized by the Second Amendment is written right there into the RULES ON HOW THE COUNTRY SHALL BE RUN.

But now how about the First Amendment?

Can you only imagine if similar laws were enacted with respect to the First Amendment “for the public good” or “to prevent violence” or for any other reason? What would be the public reaction if printers, computers, or pen and paper were made to require a license to own or to carry? What if the government decided that no average citizen has the right to own and or use a printing device which is capable of so many pages per minute, so must be prohibited from owning that printing device? What if the government decided that being able to reach a certain number of people is enough, so you don’t need a website which is accessible by anyone in the world? Or how about if they limited the size of signs which could be carried in public?

People talk about the fire in a crowded theater argument as well as the libel and slander angles. The thing is that there is no prior restraint. Nobody duct tapes the mouths of people entering a theater. Nobody has any legal method of preventing someone from libeling or slandering another. THE ACTIONS ARE PUNISHED, NOT THE ABILITY OR MEANS OF COMMITTING THE ACTIONS.

Consider a possible prior restraint on part of the Sixth Amendment.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Nobody thinks to license jurors, but what if they did? What if the defendant were compelled to pay for the licensing of jurors or be forced to forgo the benefit of this Constitutional Protection? What if someone accused of a crime were presented with a requirement to pay a fee for every witness brought on their behalf or every subpoena issued on their behalf?

Sure, rights have limits. But are they really rights if prior restraint is applied? I don’t think so.