The Weekly Sedition

Tuesday, 11 October 2016

“Mine” vs. “Yours”

Filed under: Politics, Principles — Tags: , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:22 PM


From what I’ve seen in thirty years of being involved on the public scene, there seem to be two basic mindsets towards life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, money, time, effort, you name it, where politics is concerned.

First is the “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours” way of thinking. This is the dominant mindset amongst libertarians. Some conservatives subscribe to it, as well.

But not the neo-conservatives and social conservatives, who seem to be perfectly OK with government at every level getting bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, just so long as they approve of the ways it gets bigger, more intrusive, and more expensive. The issues of abortion, same-sex relations, gambling, drugs and prostitution are examples of this.

Or said “conservatives” are concerned with getting “their fair share” of time at the public trough – contracts for the various social-welfare programs, construction contracts, and such.

Which brings me to the other prevailing mindset on the political scene, that of “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours in negotiable (and ultimately mine).”

These are the people who get all kinds of pissed off when their money or personal property is damaged or taken without their consent. Yet if yours is similarly taken or damaged, especially when done by governmental edict, well, it’s your job to “suck it up for the common good.” Or “for the children,” “for the Earth,” or whatever.

For example, this picture of someone complaining that her Bernie 2016 sticker was stolen:

Seriously, folks, since when has Bernie Sanders EVER supported the rights of private property owners?

I would assume that anyone supporting his failed presidential bid would be in line with his views of “let’s take from the rich.” Am I out of line by suggesting that?

Another point – despite Bernie’s rather “strident” rhetoric about “soaking the rich,” he didn’t have any problem plunking down 575,000-600,000 for a lakefront dacha in Lake Hero, Vermont.

Does anyone care to guess what will happen to any vagrants who should wander onto the property?

You mean he won’t put them up in the guest bedroom for a few days, til they’re ready to move on?

What do you mean, his protective detail from the Vermont State Police will have said vagrant taken away in handcuffs?

Another instance of this:

Back in January 2013, Santa Fe City Councilor Patti Bushee and ProgressNowNM Executive Director Pat Davis[1] supported “assault weapon” bans of various kinds, and then campaigned for the State of New Mexico to recognize same-sex marriages as legal[2].

So according to Bushee and Davis, my individual, pre-existing right to own and carry weapons isn’t really a right at all, merely a government-granted privilege, revokable upon the whim of a bureaucrat (the “yours” of this instance). At the same time, they insist that the rights they cherish (same-sex marriage — the “mine” here) to be taken as sacrosanct.

Well, America, which mindset do you prefer? Pick one and stick to it, please.


  1. Bushee is no longer a City Councilor in Santa Fe, while Davis is currently “representing” District 6 on the Albuquerque City Council. No doubt that Bushee has been replaced with someone equally looney.
  • Patti Bushee and Pat Davis Hinder, Not Help, the LGBT CauseNot that such an ordinance would have actually survived a court challenge, as New Mexico has a pre-emption clause in Article II, Section 6 of the State Constitution:

    No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be\ held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

    But Bushee had to have her warm fuzzy (and no-charge advertising media coverage) for the moment that she “got something done” and “made a difference,” so she sponsored the ban anyway.

  • Approximate reading level – 13.4

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.



Friday, 10 April 2015

A Question for Judge Malott (Letter to the Editor)

Filed under: Media, Philosophy, Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:03 PM

From: Mike Blessing
To: Editorial Page Editor, Albuquerque Journal
Date: Friday, 3 April 2015
Subject: A Question for Judge Malott

In today’s op-ed piece about discrimination, Judge Malott states that as the trial judge in Elane Photography v. Willock[1], he ruled that it’s illegal for people to discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation, and that Elaine Hugenin was wrong to refuse service to Vanessa Willock on that basis.

This begs the question of why it was so important for Willock to force herself upon Hugenin, but I digress.

The question then for Judge Malott is this: is it against the law for a gay-owned business to refuse service to straight people simply because they’re straight?

If the answer is “yes,” then the Judge is saying that people should be forced to associate with others that they would prefer not to, and freedom of association goes down the toilet.

If “no,” then the judge is saying that politically-protected segments of society get to lord it over to those deemed unworthy of such protection, and the question isn’t about the offending conduct, but “who” does to “whom.”

I’m having trouble deciding which answer to this is worse. In the end, I’d prefer that individuals be free to associate with others of their own choice, period.

To the LGBT folks — If you want someone to take pictures or video of or bake a cake for your commitment ceremony, why would you force yourself upon those who don’t want your business when some of their competitors will happily do business with you?


  1. Elane Photography v. WillockBing / DuckDuckGo / Google


  1. Approximate reading level – 13.8

Copyright © 2015 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Monday, 2 March 2015

An open letter to Ladd Everitt at CSGV

Filed under: Humor, Politics, Principles, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:32 AM

Mr. Everitt –

As we all have noticed, you have a rather disconcerting obsession with the penises (penii?) of firearm owners and are constantly comparing them to the size of those who do not own guns. This particular fetish for penis size comparison is quite interesting, very much so to be honest. With that in mind we’d like to ask you a few questions.

  1. How long have you been meat gazing?
  2. Do you also compare the dick size of minors who enjoy guns?
  3. Is your comparison based on erect or flaccid penises?
    1. If erect to you give out a handie before measuring?
    2. If you give a handie do they get a happy ending or do you leave them with blue balls?
  4. Do you go “hands on” or just guesstimate?
  5. Do you ask to check penis size or do it surreptitiously?
  6. How many dicks have you measured over the years?

Considering your penis fetish, as displayed on your Facebook page, we feel these are valid concerns. We are most concerned with question #2 as most of our sons also enjoy the shooting sports and the fact you are checking out their dick size is rather troubling. As a matter of fact there is a word that describes adults who groove on checking out the genitalia of children.

Anyway we await the answers to our queries and thank you for your cooperation.


  1. Approximate reading level – 8.3
  2. Original article

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Saturday, 4 October 2014

Spam, Spam and More Spam

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 4:06 PM

Another bit of spam circulated to me from the infrared-emitting meat-puppet (R) in the Billingsley “vs.” Bregman turd-polishing contest commonly referred to as “the U.S. Senate race” :

9/27/2014 6:26 AM:

From the Weh campaign, Albuquerque

“Why is long-time entrenched career politician Tom Udall running negative campaign ads? Because he doesn’t want you to know the facts.

Udall’s new attack ad today claims we want to deny seniors their healthcare. Who is he kidding?

He’s the only candidate in this race that voted to cut Medicare by $716 billion when he cast his deciding vote for ObamaCare! He cast a deciding vote to rob Medicare to help pay for it. “Tom Foolery” at its best!

So the GOP plan to “support health freedom” is to complain about Obama’s 21st century scheme of medical national socialism by saying it will take away from Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 scheme of medical national socialism?

They do know that Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat? One of the people that they say they’re against, correct?

So much for the GOP supporting those Tea Party ideals of free markets, limited government and individual rights.

But the reality of campaign advertising is that it can influence voters — even if it’s not true. And Udall’s ad is not only NOT true, it’s almost a joke! But now we have to quickly craft an ad to reply to this false attack, and that costs money we hadn’t planned on.

What’s the matter? Did Weh run out of funds from his profiteering shell-game known as “CSI Aviation” ? Not enough taxpayer FRNs coming in from We The Fleeced to count as “contributions” ?

He can always pass the hat to Slick Willard Romney.

But Weh has a two-shot here – after Weh responds to the latest Udall attempt at mudslinging, then Weh can do another ad telling us how great that ad was – isn’t that how it works?

Please help us respond to Udall’s attack so we can get the real truth out to our voters. Please give $75, $150, or $250 to help us stand up to Tom Udall.

Ask David Clements for some cash.


Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who wipes your ass? Who should – you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer – what’s the question?

“An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications.”
“Anything free is worth what you pay for it.”
“Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors – and miss.”
“In a mature society, ‘civil servant’ is semantically equal to ‘civil master.'”
“Place your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark.”
“Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.”
– Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

“Government is the disease that masquerades as its own cure.”
– Robert LeFevre

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
– Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

“If you wanna live long on your own terms
You gotta be willing to crash and burn”
– Motley Crue, “Primal Scream”


  1. From The Weekly Sedition:

    Coverup in the Bernalillo County GOP [1] (Shortlink:

    Weh v. Clements, Part 2 (Shortlink:


  1. Approximate reading level – 8.3

Copyright © 2014 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++ and KWrite.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Sunday, 30 June 2013

One Reason Why I Will NEVER Convert to Bahá’ísm

Here are the gory details, straight from the Bahais themselves.


Whether Baha’is may practice self-defense in times of danger, and whether American Baha’is should purchase firearms.

From the texts you already have available it is clear that Bahá’u’lláh has stated that it is preferable to be killed in the path of God’s service than to kill, and that organized religious attack against Bahá’ís should never turn into any kind of warfare, as this is strictly prohibited in our Writings.

So a Bahá’í is expected to “take one for the team” in the name of the faith? If a group of whacko Islamofascists were to set upon a Bahá’í temple with physical violence in mind, the Bahá’ís are supposed to simply stand by and let it happen?

A hitherto untranslated Tablet from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, however, points out that in the case of attack by robbers and highwaymen, a Bahá’í should not surrender himself, but should try, as far as circumstances permit, to defend himself, and later on lodge a complaint with the government authorities. In a letter written on behalf of the Guardian, he also indicates that in an emergency when there is no legal force at hand to appeal to, a Bahá’í is justified in defending his life. In another letter the Guardian has further point out that the assault of an irresponsible assailant upon a Bahá’í should be resisted by the Bahá’í, who would be justified, under such circumstances, in protecting his life.

How exactly is a Bahá’í (or anyone else, for that matter) to tell if the assailant is a responsible one versus an irresponsible one?

If the assailant is a responsible attacker, is then the Bahá’í adherent supposed to refrain from resisting?

What if the Bahá’í deems the attacker to be irresponsible, and later it’s determined that the thug was indeed a responsible thug?

The House of Justice does not wish at the present time to go beyond the guidelines given in the above-mentioned statements. The question is basically a matter of conscience, and in each case the Bahá’í involved must use his judgment in determining when to stop in self-defense lest his action deteriorate into retaliation.

Oh no, the horrors of retaliation!

Of course the above principles apply also in cases when a Bahá’í finds himself involved in situations of civil disorder. We have, however, advised the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States that under the present circumstances in that country it is preferable that Bahá’ís do not buy nor own arms for their protection or the protection of their families.

Here we have it – an explicit proclamation from Bahá’í officialdom that firearms ownership is discouraged.

With that, I can safely say that I am not joining and will not join the Bahá’í faith.


  1. Self-Defense, Guidance on by Universal House of Justice, first written or published 1969-05-26

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Saturday, 26 January 2013

[DailyKos] How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

How many time have we, the advocates of the right to own and carry weapons as an individual right, heard this from the hoplophobes:

You gun nuts are paranoid. We don’t want to ban all guns – just assault weapons. How many bullets do you really need to kill a deer?

If it isn’t that, here’s another tired old line that they trot out:

We don’t want to ban all guns – we just want reasonable, common-sense gun laws . . . .

Yeah, right – we’ve seen from the past what their idea of “reasonable, common-sense gun laws” is, which is nothing but a total ban on the slow plan.

So, lo and behold, one of the hoplophobes recently posted an article to, where he (?) advocates a plan for nationwide compulsory firearms registration (the old hype of “guns should registered and licensed like cars” as a prelude to banning all guns from civilian possession:

How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
by “sporks”

It’s nice that we’re finally talking about gun control. It’s very sad that it took such a terrible tragedy to talk about it, but I’m glad the conversation is happening. I hear a lot about assault weapon and large magazine bans, and whilst I’m supportive of that, it won’t solve the problem. The vast majority of firearm deaths occur with handguns. Only about 5% of people killed by guns are killed by guns which would be banned in any foreseeable AWB.

Furthermore, there seems to be no talk about high powered rifles. What gun nuts don’t want you to know is many target and hunting rifles are chambered in the same round (.223/5.56mm) that Lanza’s assault weapon was. Even more guns are chambered for more powerful rounds, like the .30-06 or (my personal “favorite”) 7.62x54R. Even a .22, the smallest round manufactured on a large scale, can kill easily. In fact, some say the .22 kills more people than any other round out there.

Again, I like that we’re talking about assault weapons, machine guns, and high capacity clips. But it only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person. Remember the beltway sniper back in 2002? The one who killed a dozen odd people? Even though he used a bushmaster assault rifle, he only fired one round at a time before moving. He could have used literally any rifle sold in the US for his attacks.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it:

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that “lost” them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn’t. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.

Now, maybe he sold them or they got lost or something. But it gives us a good target for investigation. A nice visit by the ATF or state police to find out if he really does still have those guns would be certainly warranted. It’s certainly not perfect. People may have gotten guns from parents or family, and not registered them. Perfect is the enemy of pretty darn good, as they say. This exercise isn’t so much to track down every gun ever sold; the main idea would be to profile and investigate people that may not have registered their guns. As an example, I’m not so concerned with the guy who bought that bolt action Mauser a decade ago and doesn’t have anything registered to his name. It’s a pretty good possibility that he sold it, gave it away, or got rid of it somehow. And even if he didn’t, that guy is not who I’m concerned with. I’m concerned that other guy who bought a half dozen assault weapons, registered two hunting rifles, and belongs to the NRA/GOA. He’s the guy who warrants a raid.

So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations. This would, in effect, prevent new guns from being made or imported. This would put the murder machine corporations out of business for good, and cut the money supply to the NRA/GOA. As money dries up, the political capital needed for new controls will be greatly reduced.

There are a few other things I would suggest. I would suggest an immediate, national ban on concealed carry. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer. Microstamping would also be a very good thing. Even if the only thing it does is drive up costs, it could still lead to crimes being solved. I’m willing to try every advantage we can get.

A national Firearms Owner Identification Card might be good, but I’m not sure if it’s necessary if we have a national database. We should also insist on comprehensive insurance and mandatory gun safes, subject to random, spot checks by local and federal law enforcement.

We must make guns expensive and unpopular, just like cigarettes. A nationwide, antigun campaign paid for by a per gun yearly tax paid by owners, dealers, and manufacturers would work well in this regard. We should also segway into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.

I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don’t want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member. I’m sure you don’t either. So lets stop looking for short term solutions and start looking long term. Registration is the first step.

Tell Pres. Obama and democrats in congress to demand mandatory, comprehensive gun registration. It’s the only way we can ban guns with any effectiveness.

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Thursday, 24 January 2013


Filed under: Comedy, Entertainment, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 1:35 AM

After reading in Yahoo! News that a fifth-grader was reprimanded for bringing a paper ‘gun’ to school, I decided to open a new line of business for myself – that of paper arms merchant.

As the local crack dealer will tell you, the ones below are FREE – after these, you’ll have to shell out some hard cash.

For future purchases, I’m willing to settle for Federal Reserve Notes, but would prefer hard specie – gold, silver or platinum.

To obtain your very own paper weaponry, all you have to do is print this page, then cut along the dotted lines. It really is that simple.

First up, I have the Paper Pistol Model 1. It’s 8″ x 5″ – easily used in one hand.

Next there’s the Paper Assault Weapon Model 2. It’s a bit longer, so you might have to use the magazine as a foregrip. But that shouldn’t be a problem.

Below is the compact version of the Model 2. To get the full-sized version, simply click on the image (it should come up in a separate tab), and then print it out.

Either model can be folded or rolled up and still function perfectly – either one can easily be concealed in a pocket, in a book, even in your wallet!

And remember that since both of them are 100 percent PAPER, they will easily get through any sort of metal detector. Also, since they don’t use anything like gunpowder, there’s no worry about nitrate traces!

H/T to Tashie for the heads-up!

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Saturday, 19 January 2013

About those “flying saucers” . . .

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:40 PM

While perusing the forums of Free Republic, I found the following snipe attempt in response to a posting about supporting Ron Paul:

To: bravedog

A flying saucer on every rooftop.

35 posted on Thursday, May 03, 2012 8:20:47 PM by familyop (“Wanna cigarette? You’re never too young to start.” –Deacon, “Waterworld”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Well . . .

If we did get that “flying saucer on every rooftop,” then Mr. “familyop” won’t have much justification to snivel “Who will build the roads?!” as he (?) whines in support of the GOP’s social-engineering-and-welfare scheme of the day.

But do we really need government to spend a few million FRN on “rebuilding” roads? And forget about the hassles of traffic diversions, blockages, jams, and such.

NO, we do not.

But if private citizens build and repair the roads without government direction and subsidy, then what excuse would law enforcement have to levy double and triple fines for speeding through “construction zones” around town? And they do it, at least here in Albuquerque, even when the crews the extra fines are supposed to protect have gone home for the day.


  1. Approximate reading level – 5.8
  2. Listening – The Last Command by W.A.S.P.

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++ and KWrite.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Friday, 4 January 2013

The Hoplophobe (Gun-Banner) Idea of “Reasonable Gun Control”

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 9:08 PM

Any time someone says that they want “reasonable, common-sense gun control,” this memo that was leaked out of Handgun Control Inc (now the Brady Campaign) should give you an idea of the things that comprise what they really want. In short, the total annihilation of the Americans’ individual, pre-existing, Constitutionally-guaranteed right to self-defense, and the corollary right to own and carry weapons.

It’s a long read where blog postings are concerned, but these clowns intend to play for keeps.

Basically, they want to apply to guns and gun owners the same sorts of logic and rules that past administrations have used against certain drugs and users of those substances. Look at how well that’s working out – name a drug that’s deemed illegal (and thus immoral) by the Ruling Classwipes, and chances are it’s readily available in any inner-city public school that you care to name. It’s a good bet that the drug in question will also be available in most of the prison system, as well.

But criminal activity that involves one person harming another person isn’t what these people are interested in stopping. What they want is greater control over the general population.

What follows is their wish list from 1993 in trashing not only the Second Amendment, but also the First, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and the common-law presumption of innocence before being proven guilty. I suspect that the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth would (or will?) take a beating along the way, as well.

Parts of this have been introduced as legislation – they tried to sue firearms manufacturers from 1999 to 2005, they tried to shut down gun shows and private sales in 2001 with the McCain-Lieberman S.890. Several states (Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey) have licensing schemes in place. Chicago has had a near-total ban on handgun ownership in place (and one of the highest per capita rates of firearms-related death and crime in the nation) for decades. New York City has required a permit to own or carry a handgun since 1911, and the only people who get that permit are the rich and politically-connected types.

On some of the gun-banner “planks” or “talking points,” I’ve added comments in red – these are for things that they have already put in place or tried to implement.

  • Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
  • Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading.
  • Ban of possession of parts to convert arms into military configuration.
  • Ban on all pump shotguns capable of being converted to more than 5 shots without reloading.
  • Banning of all machine guns, destructive devices, short shotguns / rifles and assault weapons.
  • Banning of Saturday Night Specials.
  • Banning of Non-Sporting Ammunition
  • Arsenal licensing (for possession of multiple guns and large amounts of ammunition)
  • Elimination of the Department of Civil Marksmanship.
  • Ban on possession of a firearm within a home located within 1000 feet of a schoolyard.
  • Ban on all realistic replicas/toy guns or non-firearms capable of being rendered realistic.
  • The right of the victim of gun violence to sue manufacturers and dealers to be affirmed and perhaps, aided with money from government programs.
  • Taxes on ammo, Dealers licenses & guns to offset the medical costs to society.
  • The eventual ban on all semiautomatics (regardless of when made or caliber).


(After the meeting the following ideas were the result of a brainstorming session to guide the focus of gun control initiatives over the next five years. These may not be politically feasible for 1994, but we are confident that with continued pressure we can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years. The following list is condensed from our meeting in which we considered the best ideas for public safety expansion. The time is right for action.)





This is at the top of our list, however, the political climate may be right to initiate this step immediately. Please refer to our memo outlining our ideas on how this should be executed.


We should take our cues from Great Britain. Strict licensing should be mandatory – for all firearms whether handguns or not.


We want to take a workable idea from Great Britain, whereas, we should require the states to issue strict licenses for possession and require the licenses to be signed by at least three public officials ––i.e., the police chief, city attorney and mayor, for example, to eliminate ownership by dangerous individuals. It is reasonable to require that all individuals must prove to the signers that they require a firearm. This should be attached to any legislation requiring purchasers to show a need for a firearm.

Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey already require some sort of license for private citizens to own any sort of firearm.


Right now the proposed Arsenal licenses which Senator Feinstein should be pushing for, requires an “Arsenal License” for those people who feel they need more than 20 guns and 1000 rounds of ammunition. We feel that number is too generous, due to the fact that any number of guns constitutes a grave threat to the safety of the community; we suggest Strongly that this license limit be reduced to possession greater than 5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.


It is not unreasonable to require a yearly fee for an Arsenal license to be at least $300, with a cap of $1000. The money collected can be used to defray the immense medical costs directly attributed to these deadly weapons.


No Arsenal Licensing to be permitted in counties with populations of more than 200,000.

The “Arsenal License” was part of a Brady II bill sponsored in May of 1994, after the success of getting the Brady Bill passed and signed in November, 1993. Click here for the text of it.

From (This article by David Kopel also explains in plain English the rest of the Brady II legislation sponsored in 1994.):

“Any person who owns 20 or more firearms or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition or primers (e.g. two ‘bricks’ of rimfire ammo) would [have been] required to get an ‘arsenal’ license. To obtain a federal arsenal license, a person would need to be fingerprinted, obtain permission of local zoning authorities, and pay a $300 tax every three years. Her home would be subjected to unannounced, warrantless inspection by the government up to three times a year. ‘Arsenal’ owners would also have to obtain a $100,000 dollar insurance policy.”

See also this Google search: Arsenal License Brady II


We should follow Great Britain’s lead on this. All licensed gun owners should be required to have a storage safe which meets minimum federally mandated requirements. This step would reduce the tragic accidents which claim the lives of tens of thousands of children a year and make it more difficult for burglars to steal the guns.


Another good revenue source would be mandatory inspection licensing of all safes. Each safe would be registered with a specific serial number and the serial numbers and types of weapons stored would be on file with federal and state authorities. Since unannounced inspectors can insure that all declared weapons are being properly stored, all safe licenses should have an additional yearly fee to offset the cost of these spot inspections.



Guns are being built all the time and the number of licensed manufacturers it too great to justify the threat to public safety. This is a small step to reduce the number of these shops where, anything, even machine guns, are being built every day.


The pending national ban on all Assault Weapons, based on a point system can be expanded to eventually cover any firearm with a remotely military appearance. We feel that this aggressive appearance appeals to the type of dangerous individuals who are a definite threat to public safety. We hope that this point system can eventually be expanded to high powered airguns and “paint ball” weapons, which can inflict great damage, and with a little effort can be converted to real guns.


Periodicals such as “The Shotgun News” particularly cater to individuals who wish to build illegal machine guns. If Senator Feinstein’s courageous section of the crime bill is successful in banning all machine gun parts expect for police and military, then there would be no legitimate need for machine gun parts except to build illegal weapons.

F-Troop already does this to a degree, in that any parts that could be used to make a machine gun are deemed to be a machine gun by themselves, such that ∅1-2 worth of springs that could be sent through the mail in an envelope now constitute a “machine gun.” They are also reputed to do the same sort of thing with suppressor parts, such as wipes. What precisely is a “wipe” in a suppressor? It’s simply a piece of rubber or plastic shaped like a fender washer – in a circle with a much smaller hole in the center.


We should institute a federal mandate to the states to strictly regulate the carrying of a firearm.


Thousand of people are building illegal weapons every day. We can put a dent in this by banning parts and parts kits, except those items like the barrel and trigger group, which are most likely to wear out due to use.

This is already part of the law for select-fire weapons. The Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 outlawed the transfer of machine gun receivers manufactured after 19 May 1986 to civilians. So when the existing receivers in civilian hands wear out . . . .


A gun is a gun. Even an old gun can kill people. This a loop hole in the federal law which was allowed thousands of dangerous weapons to be distributed unchecked. This regulation, if enacted, would automatically eliminate the need for a Curio or Relic collector’s license. All handguns, rifles and shotguns would fall into the same category as their modern counterparts.


Senator Moynihan has already proposed a tax or ban on .22 LR, .32 ACP, and 9mm ammo, however, it has been pointed out to us that there is an extreme proliferation of high powered surplus rifles (i.e.,the Mosin-Nagant series and Enfield series) in which the wholesale prices are as low as $45 to $75. We suggest that to control the proliferation of violence associated with the large number of these types of weapons entering this country that we ban the importation of their ammunition. 7.62x54R and .303 surplus ammunition.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan repeatedly sponsored bills that would have taxed 9×19-mm Parabellum rounds at a rate of 10,000 % – he cited “epidemiology” as his rationale and likened this to the federally-mandated 55-mph speed limit of the time.


This may be closer to reality than many of us think. Handguns are becoming increasingly unpopular and we think that within five years we can enact a total ban on possession at the federal level.

Republican Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island was noted for repeatedly sponsoring bills to outlaw civilian handgun ownership entirely.


With the proliferation of high powered weapons, including semiautomatics and automatics from World War II, we suggest following the lead of Mexico, by prohibiting the sale, manufacture, possession or transfer of any caliber fitting a military firearm in service with a recognized military force after 1945.

Italy and other countries have similar policies on their books



With the bombing of the World Trade Center, it has been made clear that we must reinforce the above proposed regulation with this additional notation. It is arguable that no one has any real need to have so much dangerous material on hand.


Gun nuts are notorious for circumventing the intent of the law, so we can reinforce the above proposed regulation with this additional notation. This additional language can be useful in preventing “bomb-makers” and other dangerous individuals.


In addition to the banning of military calibers, there is a plethora of dangerous rounds which are too high powered for sporting use. This includes the highest calibers of pistol and rifle ammunition (of note are the monster calibers for rifles and pistols, like the .50 caliber Desert Eagle Bullet). We should not forget the lessons learned with the insidious Black Talon Ammo. Hollow points, Glaser killing rounds and other types of ammunition designed specifically for maiming should be prohibited.


This is an idea whose time has come. We should look at a Federal License for purchasing of ammunition of all kinds. A special form should be forwarded to a new federal office to track those who are purchasing too much ammunition. Remember that a gun is useless without ammunition.


Ammunition regulation laws can be regularly bypassed by home loaders, creating an underground cottage industry of ammo manufacture. Possession or purchase of reloading equipment and machines should be restricted and those who wish to use specially loaded ammunition can go to a federally licensed reloader.


Fees collected from the national licenses should go toward a nationwide database of ammo buyers with a possible background check to eliminate the purchase of dangerous ammo by felons or mental patients.


Like the storage safe for guns, there should be a national requirement for special safes to store ammo. These safes should be tamperproof and fireproof and be registered themselves so that on the spot inspections can be held. Again, the costs for these inspections can be absorbed by the license fees.


Hoplophobes have been reported trying to shut down shooting ranges at the local level using zoning codes, nuisance and noise-abatement laws, things like that.


The obvious threat to public safety of shooting ranges and stray bullets has been lost on many states and counties. We can initiate a federal mandate or incentives to get states to prohibit any kind of shooting range within a county with a population of more than 200,000.


Those ranges which conform to the previous requirement should get special licensing above and beyond that which is required now. Additionally each existing or new shooting range must get in writing the permission of all property owners within a radius of seven miles.


Additional revenue can be a surtax on ranges, requiring the collection of a minimum of $85 per visit per person. This can be in addition to required membership fees, upon which the state and local governments get a sizable portion, to help defray the immense cost of gun violence.


It has been suggested in the past that felons can acquire pistols and other automatic weapons without a background check by renting a gun on a target range. Deranged individuals are basically being given a license to practice hunting humans at these so called “sporting ranges.” We think that a national waiting period for gun rentals is yet another idea whose time has come.



Illegal transfers and the sales of assault weapons and submachine guns is a common event at these so called gun shows. A huge dent can be made in the illegal trafficking of weapons by banning these shows altogether.

This is what McCain and Lieberman were working towards when they sponsored S.890 in 2001. Here’s the Library of Congress page for that one.


The questionable “historical” value of these events has escaped the public scrutiny for too long. Many of these so called historical events are mere excuses for gun nuts to blast the countryside with automatic weapons. What is to keep them from loading live bullets and having those stray bullets kill innocent children? What lives in the future will be lost due to this paramilitary training going on right under our noses? We propose the prohibition of survivalist/paramilitary, World War I and World War II and Civil War Reenactments on federal land, and hope to encourage the states to prohibit them from state and county lands as well.


Since most hunting parties consist of four, we recognize the need to eliminate the currently legal assembly of shooters for paramilitary training on private lands. This is just one good suggestion for our elimination of the “gun culture” from the mainstream.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and “Anti-Defamation” League would probably support something like this as part of their anti-militia spiel, if they haven’t already.


Blood sports are an anathema to a civilized society, however, it has been a political reality that the hunters and their ilk have too strong of a stranglehold on Congress. We feel that the impending defeat of high tech assault “killing machines” will open the door to restrictions. With the diminishing number of hunters, we feel that perhaps in five years we can open up much more of our country to campers and hikers, and eliminate the threat to families and camping, by looking at much more restrictions as to what parcels of land will allow hunting. This will not infringe on sportsman’s’ rights to hunt on private land.


We would have to assemble a legal team in order to investigate the balance of the right to privacy and the right to safeguard public. We fully endorse the photographing and fingerprinting of all gun owners, however, the records are usually relegated to law enforcement only. We think that it would be a good idea to make these records public, so that the communities can have the knowledge of who poses a danger to their community before disaster strikes. We realize that this proposal would probably be controversial, thus a long public affairs campaign would have to be initiated in order to build public support and ease the transition of such an idea. We feel that this idea has merit, and can be justified via the past publication of the names of water wasters during the drought, customers for prostitution, and deadbeat parents who are delinquent on child support.

The Journal News in New York tried exactly this sort of thing recently, and received considerable backlash in response:

Journal News‘ gun-owner database draws criticism
The Journal News / assailed for publishing map of gun permit holders
Community Views: Anger at Journal News over gun-permit database

On page 2 of the second article, the paper’s staff reported that they had done something similar in 2006, although it wasn’t as much a blow-up on social media then as it was now. Still, the Journal News staff felt that the 2012-2013 backlash was substantial enough that they hired armed guards: Newspaper hires armed guards after publishing gun data


This idea was floated before in California in 1989, where some thought it would be a great deterrent to gang-related crimes for police to do sweeps for gang weapons. Right now this idea may have some resistance; however, the political climate can become right to initiate these random vehicle stop and checks at all levels and in all types of neighborhoods. If we continue to mainstream the pressure we can make this a reality.

There allegedly was an HB163 introduced in the 104th Congress (1996) that would have empowered law enforcement to do exactly this, especially near schools.


With all that is going on, who knows what is possible in the next few years? With murders in the streets, the public fed up, and the once mighty thugs of the Gun Lobby whimpering in impotence we have an opportunity to change the face of America for the better! Previously we thought that it would take at least a century to eliminate dangerous weapons and guns from the public hands, but now with allies in the White House and Congress, we can accelerate this trend, and make the barbaric NRA extinct!!! Here are some ideas to consider for the long term:


Essential to the Neanderthal gun culture are the typical military clothing, camouflage, pouches, boots and other combat gear. They euphemistically refer to this as “militaria.” Elimination of the future sale of these items will cripple the culture of violence well into the 21st century.


We should look at the possibility of victims of violence by copying an act on television and the movie or video screen, suing the makers of such shows for compensation to their suffering. If the industry cannot regulate itself, we may have to eventually look at an independent branch of government to determine which scenes cause more harm than good to the public and regulate the numbers of violent acts portrayed.


We cannot survive into the 21st century unless we remember the need to expand our wave to new thinking to the total disarmament of America. With much of the public we can become more like Great Britain, where we can also eliminate the need for much of our police to be armed. This would take a long time; however, a concerted public relations campaign can pressure local law enforcement to give up their arms, when the time comes. Weapons would be available to special units like SWAT or the military.


Too much irresponsible material is purportedly covered by the First Amendment, however, the time will come when our nation has to agree that some literature does not belong in a safe society, like instruction manuals on how to kill, or how to make homemade explosives or nuclear bombs. We must realize that there can be such a thing as too much freedom where such literature poses a serious threat to the public safety.


We are pressing on all fronts and much of this can become reality sooner than we expect. With the loss of power and clout of the NRA and their various smaller crony organizations crumbling to dust, we eliminate a 200-year-old license to murder into history, and enter the 21st century a safer place for our children and children’s children.


Attachment 1:

(Confidential Information for use by Lobbyists or Senior Officers ONLY!)

I. Proposed License Fees – 1994-1995 Gun Control Proposals

These listings and the documentation used to calculate these suggested fee schedules will be made available to federal law enforcement authorities and U.S. Department of the Treasury for review, when the time is right. Additional material will be made available to key politicians when proposing any fee-related legislation. These suggestions will be instrumental in determining the nature of future gun control legislation and proposals.

   A. Handgun License Fees:

      Year 1 to 2: $50-$75 annually.
      Year 3 to 4: $150-$250 annually.
      Year 5 to 8: $550-$625 annually.

   B. Penalties for noncompliance:

      i. Failure to acquire license –– $1,000/6 months jail, revocation of ability to own
      ii. Failure to maintain license –– $5,000/12 months jail, revocation of ability to own
      iii. Failure to turn over guns for destruction after lapse of license –– $15,000/18 months jail, revocation of ability to own.

   C. Failure to renew license or notify issuing authority of change of status would be considered a felony. All firearms owned would be then considered contraband, and confiscated. State or local authorities would be prohibited from retaining or reselling any confiscated firearms. Record of destruction to be issued to federal government not later than 60 days after confiscation.

   D. Rifle-Shotgun License:
      Program begins at $30 or at cost to maintain federal records on ownership and registration.
      Fee: $30-$148 annually.

   E. State Licensing:
      The Department of Justice for each state will initiate programs at state level, with fees equivalent to federal.
      Fee: $74-$150 annually.

   F. Local Licensing:
      The cost of annual license to reflect the cost of records-maintenance and enforcement.
      Fee: $48-$113 annually.

   G. Arsenal License: (20 guns or 1,000 rounds ammo).
      Fee: $300-$1,000 annually.

   H. Penalty for Noncompliance of Arsenal Licensing Law:
      $5,000/8 months jail, confiscation of all firearms-related property, revocation of ability to own firearms. (Disposition to be determined by Department of Justice and the state/federal legislatures.)

   I. Safe License:
      Fee: $228-$392 annually (based on calculations of set up of computerized records system, enforcement, registration processing).

   J. Ammunition Registration & License:
      Fee: $55-$117 for license to buy ammunition (based on calculations of set up of computerized records-keeping system, enforcement and registration processing).

   K. Federal license for Reloading (or possession of reloading equipment) .
      Fee: $130-$175 annually.

   L. Ammunition Safe License.
      Fee: $55-$75 annually.

   M. Range License (new federal license on target, outdoor/indoor ranges).
      Fee: $12,100-$15,500 annually.

   N. Range Tax (imposed on Federally licensed gun ranges).
      Fee: $85-$100 per person, per visit.

   O. Inspection License: (verifying records of guns and storage) To defray cost of inspection and firearms safes in business or private homes.
      Fee: $588-$678 annually.

II. Suggestions To Be Made Immediately Available to Key Politicians And Secretary of U.S. Treasury

   A. Increase Dealers License (Federal Firearms License 01 and 02) to $600-$750 annually.

   B. Increase Title 1 Manufacturing License to $6,200-$9,400 annually.

   C. Increase Title 2 Manufacturing License to $13,405-$18,210 annually.

III. Estimate Of Fiscal Impact Of Licensing On Firearms Ownership

          Worst Case   Best Case
      Federal Handgun License:   $50   $625
      Fed. Rifle & Shotgun License:   $148   $148
      Local Gun License Fee:   $48   $113
      State Gun License Fee:   $74   $150
      Arsenal License Fee:   $300   1,000
      Safe License Fee:   $228   $392
      Ammunition License Fee:   $55   $117
      Reloading License Fee:   $130   $175
      Ammo Safe License Fee:   $55   $75
      Ammo Inspection Fee:   $588   $678
      Total Annual Cost:   $3,473   $3,473

This cost is not unreasonable, since it would offset considerably the estimated $60 billion dollars in medical and social costs related to gun violence.

IV. Reduction Of Gun Owner Population And Potential Yearly Revenue

The federal government estimates 65-75 million Americans own guns. These fees and the licensing requirements would allow us to take guns out of the hands of an estimate 30 million unsuitable or ineligible individuals. Fees for the remaining would reduce the number to about 14 million. Estimated revenue would constitute a minimum of $21.8 trillion dollars (worst case) to an estimated $48.6 trillion (best case) annually. Our eventual goal is to reduce the number of licensees to zero. The revenue itself can be utilized to achieve this goal.

V. Possible Uses for the Revenue

   A. Institute mandatory national, comprehensive educational campaign in schools (K-12) to deglamorize guns and gun ownership and tell the truth about the Second Amendment.

   B. A well-funded, concerted campaign to eliminate the Second Amendment via constitutional amendment.

Major Owens repeatedly sponsored such repeal bills while in the U.S. House for New York’s 11th District.

   C. Provide revenue source for enforcement of new laws.

   D. Provide offsetting monetary fund for medical and legal services to victims of gun violence.

   E. Establish nationwide system of toll-free numbers for reporting violators of new gun restrictions and non-licensees, a sum set aside for cash rewards for tips resulting in conviction.

New York City has already implemented their own toll-free fink line, as well as the F-Troop.

Additional Revenue sources listed:

Range Licenses: $12,100 annually.
Range Tax: $85 per person, per visit.
Gun Dealer License: $600 annually.
Title 1 gun Mfg License: $6,000 annually.
Title 2 Gun Mfg License: $13,400 annually.

Revenue calculations concerning the above fees will depend on how the numbers of gun ranges, gun range visitors, gun dealers and gun manufacturers are affected by increased fees. It is not unreasonable to predict a 40% drop by the end of the first year, another 35% drop by the year after that.

VI. Legal action and possible new revenue sources

Pending issues to be given at the appropriate time to the LCAV office for investigation as to feasibility, implementation and public reaction. At no time should these suggestions be made public before we can ascertain the current public reaction and provide the results of these studies to the LCAV attorneys.

These are some ideas which are ahead of their time and would only be feasible through a concerted P.R. campaign over time. A P.R. campaign includes press releases, press conferences, direct lobbying and constant pressure via the national media. We must change the way America thinks in regard to guns and gun owners in order to achieve a safe society for our children in the upcoming century. We realize that one cannot implement every good idea overnight, however, the following proposals have been forwarded for investigation as to possible enaction within the next few years. A continued P.R. campaign with the general public as well as the legal and judicial community, will enable us to finally get groundbreaking rulings which can change the violent face of the American landscape for years to come.

Legal Point 1:
Making possible the suing of owners of guns, as a group, for monetary compensation for victims of gun violence:

Once gun owners in America have been identified through a verifiable source, i.e., the pending national computer registry, it would be possible to seek further compensation for victims of gun violence through legal means. As a group, gun nuts would constitute an identifiable entity for class-action suits and other legal actions for compensation to victims of gun violence.

The hoplophobes were working towards this by suing firearms manufacturers between 1999 and 2005 – this sort of thing spurred the enactment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. Basically, the idea was the same as the lawsuits against the tobacco industry – apply the third-party liability notion to guns as the Castano Group did against RJ Reynolds et al.

Legal Point 2:
Suing Gun Organizations under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced, Corrupt Organization) statute:

It would be expected that gun groups and lobbying groups such as the NRA would encourage noncompliance. Thus nationally recognized groups will be technically “organizing to break the law.” Once this can be proven, these groups will be vulnerable to lawsuits based on the RICO statute and drained of the financial resources through repeated legal action.

Legal Point 3:
Suing the makers of toy-replica guns, toy weapons and violent entertainment:

One of the purveyors of violence to society, companies which profit from violence would eventually be identified and made legally responsible for the violent acts inspired by their products. A study would have to be created to link these companies to those actions taken as a result of their products. Threat of legal action would convince many manufacturers and distributors that other nonviolence-related recreational materials and toys, would make them fiscally accountable for the cost to society incurred as a result of their merchandise. Items could include: violent video games, television shows, movies, videotapes, water guns, super soakers, electronic noise guns, replica guns, toy weapons like swords, batons, martial arts items.

Tort law as we know it may not have to undergo a change in order to facilitate these actions. As many people know, it is not necessary to actually win in order to affect change, since the constant threat of legal action will induce change in the way people do business. People all know that the real fiscal effect of repeated legal actions can bankrupt a peddler of violence just as well as winning a large settlement.

Any additional ideas or proposals should be directed to our Washington D.C. office for collation, investigation and discussion.


  1. Handgun Control Inc’s 5 year plan (long read, but well worth it)
  2. Fordham Urban Law Journal 22 (1995): 417 – The Battle Over the Brady Bill and the Future of Gun Control Advocacy By Richard M. Aborn (archived online by the Second Amendment Foundation)
  3. Google search – HCI Five Year Plan
  4. Thomas T. Thomas, Getting Serious About Gun Control – December 23, 2012:,

Copyright © 2012 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Friday, 28 December 2012

Gun Owners are the True 99 % — BOTE Math on American Gun-Related Deaths

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:51 PM

Current mood: irate

For the uninitiated, “BOTE” stands for “back of the envelope” – cocktail napkins rip and tear too much to used for anything other than as napkins.

32,000 – annual number of firearms-related deaths in America (source: CDC)

270,000,000 – number of guns in America’s private sector (BATFE estimate – other estimates double or triple this number)

Now we simply divide the first number (32,000) by the second number (270,000,000) to get a guesstimate of the number of guns involved in fatal incidents in America. Granted, this is rather inaccurate in that it assumes that each fatality involved a separate gun – the recent spree killers in Aurora, Colorado and Newton, Connecticut that Senator Feinstein is gleefully using to justify her latest victim disarmament scheme used the same firearms to kill multiple people. The fact is, that VD movement was rather stagnant here in the States after the year 2000 – this is just what the Senator needed to kick-start it back to life. As the adage goes, “never let a crisis go to waste.”

(32,000) / (270,000,000) = 0.0001185185 – that’s 0.0118518519 % of American guns are the ones that “kill people in America” (guns don’t kill people – when was the last time you saw one fly around on its own, load itself, point itself at anyone and pull its own trigger? But try telling that to an advocate of victim disarmament.)

So to comply with the Senator’s demands, allegedly to prevent spree killers like Lanza and Horton, the other 99.9881481481 percent of American gun owners simply must give up their liberty and property. Never mind that the 99% here never engaged in such evil, nor have any desire to do so.

Never mind that the 1994 “assault weapon” ban signed by Waco Willie Clinton was a dismal failure in stopping such massacres (or any other sort of crime) – the 101 California Street shootings were carried out using two pistols that the State of California had declared illegal six years before (the crappy Intratec TEC-9). What Feinstein wants, Feinstein is determined to get, and to Hell with the truth, or the consequences.

Calculations done with Libre Office Calc

Here’s some more from the international scene:

Figure 1 – Gun-related deaths vs guns per capita, by country
The data used to make the above graph [PDF]

Sources for the above graph

List of countries by firearm-related death rate, Number of guns per capita by country

Graph made using Gnumeric

Copyright © 2012 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Older Posts »