An Open Letter to Representative Larson

Dear Mr. Larson,

Your "no" vote against the Keep Your Health Plan Act is unconscionable.  The President said, "If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it.  Period."  How dare you vote no against an act keeping the promise that the President made, over and over again.  How can you lend your name to a lie?  I believe you have just made yourself explicitly complicit in that lie.

As such, you can count on me to never vote for you again, as a bald faced liar is no one I want representing me.  I will vote for your opponent at every opportunity, no matter how distasteful I find that vote.

I will close by saying that I had always suspected that you were simply a mouth-piece for our President, but now you have removed all doubt.

Shame on you.

Steven Edwards

A Modest Proposal

With the shutdown over, and the debt ceiling limit raised, the crisis in the Federal government seems to be over, at least temporarily.  So now is the perfect time to reflect on the lessons learned, as well as a time to propose changes that will avoid such issues in the future.  I will offer a modest proposal to help our Federal government avoid this situation in the future.

Clearly, we can no longer trust our Representatives and Senators in Congress, as well as our President, with such power.  They've proven unable to compromise, or even negotiate solutions.  One side is unwilling to live with Obamacare themselves, while at the same time, are adamant about foisting it on the public. They have no problem messing with "the law of the land" as evidenced by their delay of implementation for big business.  Yet, the other side seems willing to bring our government to a standstill over the issue, and were close to negating the "full faith and credit" of the United States.  Both sides are self serving and beholden to large financial interests from big business, labor, and independently wealthy individuals. 

I've thought about this long and hard, and the only solution I see as workable is a complete outsourcing of our Federal government. 

I have a great deal of experience in this area, as the company I work for has embraced outsourcing with gusto.  While it has its drawbacks and detractors, it often accomplishes at least the short term goals of the organization, and often the long term goals if implemented properly.

What remains is a decision on just whom, or what the Federal government should be outsourced to.

My first reaction was to outsource to India, as I have the most experience there.  However, I think this is unworkable, as clearly the Indians are overqualified.  They run a much larger democracy themselves, and I'm guessing that it would be difficult to retain qualified personnel given how far they outclass our current representation in the House, Senate, and White House.

I considered other countries that are often the source of outsourcing, but they all have drawbacks.  I'm fairly certain that outsourcing to Eastern Europe or Russia would be against our national interest.  Outsourcing to Mexico may result in them taking back the territory that we fairly won from them after stomping them in the Mexican-American war.  (Although offering California back to them would probably sink them given the idiots that currently run that state)

So I turned my attention to "people" who might be close to on par with our current representatives, and yet would still provide better government.

My first thought was the lemurs in Madagascar.  They are a fairly intelligent species of primates.  They literally work for peanuts, thus solving our fiscal insolvency in one bold stroke.  Alas, I've found that these primates DO NOT fling their feces at each other.  Unfortunately, this disqualifies them given the fact that this seems to be a central feature of our government representatives. 

I turned my attention to the Bonobos.  They have been known to fling their feces.  However, Bonobos apparently have sex at the drop of a hat.  They do it to say "I'm Sorry."  They do it to say "Thanks."  In short, they do it.  A lot.  Given how the public reacted to Anthony Weiner, I think we can just say no to the Bonobo.

My research on alternative primates led me to the only reputable source on comparative primate species - the Planet of the Apes.

The main players become Gorillas, Orangutangs, and Chimps.  All fling their feces.  None of them have sex to say thanks.

While Gorillas have been known to fling their feces, they are clearly too warlike to lead our government.  I don't want to live under General Ursus anymore than you do.

Orangutangs will also fling feces.  But Dr. Zaius was an Orangutang.  He's a "human intelligence denier."  Clearly we need a primate overlord who will respect the fact that the average American is intelligent, if not skilled in the selection of humans for public office.

Then there is the Chimp.  In my research, I found a new article that suggests that only Chimps fling their feces with a clear target in mind.  Clearly the Chimp should be the outsourcer of choice.  Not only do they fling feces, but they do so with a clear target in mind.  They are also the most enlightened of the primates, as evidenced by Cornelius and Zaya's "humane" treatment of Taylor, the unlucky astronaut imprisoned by the Gorillas. 

So the course is clear.  Cornelius for President!

The Landmark Cafe is off of our approved list

I'm sad to say it, but he Landmark Cafe has now dropped off our "approved" list for family meals out of the house.  If you are interested, here's why...

This morning Sarah asked if we wanted to go out and get breakfast.  My daughter Sierra asked if we could go to the Landmark.  Sarah said that was what she was thinking and so off we went.

Sierra, who has her learner's permit, drove us there and we made our way to the server stand.  No one was in line but us, however, they had no open tables for us.  They offered us to wait for a table inside, or to be seated outside on Main Street.  We took our chances and asked to sit outside.

After pushing some tables together, we sat down, and the person who seated us asked what we'd like to drink.  Sarah ordered coffee, I ordered a soda, and Sierra ordered OJ.  The drinks came, along with jam and creamer, but no sugar for the coffee.  We waited for our server.

The couple behind us ordered and got their beverages, but we still waited for sugar.  Eventually, after they had been served, we got the sugar and our waiter took our order.  And a light rain began to fall...

We sat for a while and eventually the rain started falling faster, and by this time the back of my shirt was wet.  I decided that we had better move inside. 

During that time, 6 tables of people left the restaurant.  A 3 person table was open in front of us behind the glass, and I decided to stop waiting.  We gathered our drinks, silverware, and the other things on the table, so that the busy wait staff wouldn't have to.  We made our way to the table we saw, and our server came over and told us that the table we were at was taken, and that we'd have to sit at the bar.  The lady wiping down the table looked at me and I said "Who's been waiting longer?"  but we moved anyway. 

The seats at the bar were less than optimal, as they were all in a row, which limited the conversation to me and Sarah or me and Sierra... Sierra and Sarah were too far apart for any meaningful 3 way discussion to take place.  So we waited for our food largely in silence. 

Eventually it came.  We were not asked if we needed anything else.  Sierra needed maple syrup.  So I interrupted the man behind the bar, our server, who was busy typing things into the computer.  Eventually he found some syrup and delivered it.

Things were going down hill.  My wife's coffee was empty, and my soda was getting there.  No refills were forthcoming.  As I was eating, I noticed Sierra picking at her "Fantastic French Toast".  Eventually she put her silverware down.  Right before that, the waiter had asked if we needed anything, but I was distracted.  By the time I had established with Sierra that her French Toast wasn't cooked, it was too late - he was off doing other things without a second look.  Sierra didn't want to make a scene, so I respected that.  I asked her if she wanted something else, but she said no.

Sarah and I finished our food, drinks empty, and it took some time to get our waiter's attention just to get a check.  At this point, we just wanted to leave.

Sarah and I discussed the situation, what should we do?  I was furious that our server was so cavalier about the whole situation.  I told Sarah that I'd be leaving a small tip as the service was appalling.  She agreed but noted that if we didn't tell them what had gone wrong, there wasn't any point to it.  They would just write us off as cheapskates.

I agreed, and so I left a VERY small tip... less than a dollar, and I wrote why.  Here is what I wrote:

- We were denied a table of exactly 3 after having been rained on
- No refill of the coffee
- No refill of the soda
- The french toast wasn't cooked
This is why I left the tip I did instead of the normal 20%+ that I usually leave

We left after that and headed into the hallway to the back parking lot.  A woman followed us out and started yelling at us.  She told us she was the OWNER (emphasis hers) and that we shouldn't punish HER server because we had chosen to sit in the rain.  She said that we should have told her and given her a chance to fix it, and that it was wrong to punish the server for that. 

She went on to say that this was the way to handle things, not to write a "nasty note" and leave.  (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine if my note was 'nasty')

I told her that her server had denied us the table, at which point she interrupted me and said that SHE had denied us the table and it wasn't his fault.  (What is interesting is that she left the task of informing us of HER decision to HER server, rather than stepping in herself)

I told her it wasn't just the table, that the service had been horrible, that we didn't get the refills like I had said in the note, and that food wasn't cooked.  Again, she started yelling at me that SHE was the owner and that I should have told her that and she would have "fixed" it. 

At this point I pointed out that she was "yelling at her customer."  How I was supposed to know that she was the owner and the point of contact for issues eludes me.  She continued to yell at me, at which point I threw up my hands and began to leave.  Her parting comments to me were that the Brass Key restaurant is right up the street.  I didn't dignify that with a response.

Here are a few thoughts on what I might have done differently and their outcome:

- I could have made a point about my daughter's meal not being cooked.  This would have alienated her from me, as she didn't want a scene.  I'm glad I didn't do it in retrospect.  Given the owner's attitude, I shudder to think what my daughter might have eaten had I sent her meal back.

- I could have left a small but acceptable tip, perhaps 3 dollars, and said/written nothing.  She would not know anything went wrong.  We probably wouldn't be returning to the Landmark, and she'd have no idea why.  Would she have preferred that outcome?

And in my own defense, I would add that if she the OWNER was so concerned about HER server being punished by a small tip, she is perfectly within her rights to pony up 5 or 6 dollars of the $30 bill I did pay to make HER server whole.  Again, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine if you think she did.

Bottom line is that in the grand scheme of things, this is a piss hole in the snow.  However, it's funny how something like this can get under your skin. 

I dare say we won't be going back to the Landmark Cafe...

And I haven't been the Brass Key in years...  hmmmm.  More to come.

What has the Connecticut General Assembly and the Governor Wraught?

I thought I spend a little time discussing the budget and other actions our Connecticut government has seen fit to consider and sometimes pass...  Here are my thoughts in no particular order:

• The Governor has said that this was Newtown's Sandy Hook tragedy session.  On that he certainly was correct!
• Earlier this year, Connecticut enacted the toughest gun laws in the country.  I've already blogged about that.  However, in addition, they have made provisions to keep any kind of photograph, video, or 911 call that might evoke an emotional response from having to be disclosed.  So while we've reduced the ability of our law abiding citizenry from defending themselves, we have, at the same time, reduced the citizenry's ability to find out information about perhaps the most powerful of the government's tools - the power to take your life.
• Secrecy continues unabated in the current Malloy administration, given that no one knew that Keno was even on the table as a last minute budget addition.  Well, to be fair, not "no one"... I mean, the Indian tribes knew as there was a secret negotiation prior to it being added to the budget.  So now we'll have restaurants, OTB, convenience stores, and who knows what else collecting money on a numbers racket, without so much as even a public hearing on the topic.  When you have one party rule, who needs pesky public comment?
• Municipalities won't be able to save money by putting legal notices on their websites, rather than having to pay for space in the local newspapers.  The charge against that was led by the newspapers themselves.  The JI had full page ads every issue for weeks at a time.  It staggers the mind how much of an in-kind political donation to themselves this must have been. The price has to be in the 10's of thousands of dollars!  Regardless, the legislature seems content to disadvantage everyone, so long as those who buy ink by the barrel are not.
• Governor Malloy, who decried the closing of budgets with one time revenue streams during his campaigns, resorted to just those types of tactics to close his budget holes.  They've swept clean transportation, landfill, and clean energy accounts to manage to "balance" the budget.
• Not content with this broken promise, he doubled down on his plan to move to GAAP accounting for the State's budget by, you guessed it, BORROWING money to pay for the conversion!
• The biggest budget question remaining is: is it enough?  And what I mean by this is what, if any, provisions in the budget will end up becoming the Governor's second "suggestion box" approach.  Will shortfalls in revenue projections happen?  Will spending exceed that which was budgeted?  If so, we'll need to close that hole next year... and next year is an election year.  I'm betting the Governor has his fingers crossed, and maybe his toes too.

Of course, I've focused on the negative.  But here's the positive:  An Act Concerning Government Administration.  Included in it is:

• The Ballroom Polka will be the state polka
• The song entitled "Beautiful Connecticut Waltz", composed by Joseph Leggo of Newington, shall be the second state song.
• And my favorite of them all, that the Governor shall designate a day called Powered Flight Day, proclaiming that Gusave Whitehead was the first man to engage in a sustained powered aircraft flight, thus displacing the Wright Brothers as the inventors of powered flight!

Clearly the Governor and the General Assembly have done their duty to the great State of Connecticut!
(Just don't tell North Carolina)

Star Trek and JJ Abrams

So the next Abrams Star Trek movie is about to be released, and again, I'm being queried by lots of people, who know that I'm a Trekkie to get my opinion on this and the last of his movies.

First, my credentials.  I don't wear plastic ears, I don't dress in costume (although I did once dress up as a Borg, but that is a story for another day), and I don't write or consume fan fiction.  I have seen every episode of TOS (The Original Series) at least 5 times.  Yes, I've watched "Spock's Brain" at least 5 times.  I've seen every TNG episode (The Next Generation).  I've seen a lot of DS9 (Deep Space 9) episodes, and I believe I've seen all the VOY (Voyager) episodes.   I've seen most of the ENT (Enterprise) episodes.

I've seen every Star Trek movie.  I've seen Wrath of Khan about 10 times.  I've read about half a dozen Star Trek novels.

But more than anything else, I'm VERY good at Star Trek Trivia.  What does the T stand for in James T Kirk?  Tiberius.  What is the original Enterprise's serial number?  NCC-1701.  What is the serial number for the USS Constellation?  NCC-1071.  What is the monetary unit of measure on the planet Triskelion?  Well... I guess you get the picture (put the answer in the comments if you want to try and impress me)

So what about the current Trek movie Into Darkness?  Before I get to that, I have to talk about Abrams "Star Trek" reboot.  If you haven't seen that movie, Spoilers Ahead so you've been warned...

When I was reading about the build up to this movie, that it would be the original characters with a new cast, that it would be about how the Enterprise crew came together for the first time, I was extremely excited.  Prequels are hard to do (witness the last 3 Star Wars movies).  But given Abrams track record, I had confidence in him.  I desperately wanted to know, in film version, how that cast came together (how Kirk got to be Captain, how Spock became his first officer, why Bones is even on a space craft at all)

I was completely disappointed in what came out.  Why?  Here it is in a nutshell:

This is a movie about how a crew of the Enterprise came together, not a movie about how the crew of the Enterprise came together.

They forked the universe.

I guess I should not have been surprised.  After all, they've rebooted or forked the Marvell universe a whole bunch of times.  They rebooted the Spiderman movies.  And as far as I can tell, every Batman movie is a reboot.  So why not Star Trek?

From my perspective, here's why:  They ruined the characters.  Case in point: Captain Kirk.  In the original series, Kirk is raised in a two parent household, goes to Starfleet Academy, cheats on the Kobyoshi Maru test, and goes off as an Ensign to serve aboard the USS Farragut.  He reports his friend, Commander Finney for essentially falling asleep on guard duty.  He fights a gaseous vampire.  At some point he becomes friends with Commodore Decker, and later serves in a movie with the Commodore's son.  He fights off a superman named Khan and maroons him on a planet.  Later, Khan tries to take revenge and in the process Spock dies.  Kirk and the crew risk their careers to go retrieve Spock from the Genesis planet and take him to Vulcan to reunite his spirit with his new body.  The list goes on and on.

Now, none of that happened, or will happen, or at least not in that way.  Instead, Captain Kirk has no dad, basically fails out of Starfleet, he rides around on motorcycles, bluffs his way onto a transport to the Enterprise, tangles with Spock, collects Scotty and gets back on the ship, and in the end he ends up sitting in the Captain's Chair.

Frankly, if I wanted to watch young punks driving around powerful starships, I'd switch to Star Wars.

But the problem isn't as superficial as that.  They blew up Vulcan.  Let me say that again... THEY BLEW UP VULCAN!!!  I guess it's just passe to blow up the Enterprise again.  Not big-big enough?  Or, looking at the movie poster, maybe it is...  Anyway, so where does Spock go when he goes into heat, like Amok Time?  No "to the death" battle with his captain?  No Lairpa?  No On-Wu?  No over the top Alexander Courage fight music?  Kroika!

Where do they bring Spock back to in order to screw his head on correctly in The Search for Spock?

When the gas vampire cloud attacks, will Kirk help defeat it?  Will it end up reproducing, literally sucking all the blood out of the Federation?

What about Khan?  Does he get marooned?  Does he even get woken up?  When Seti-Alpha 6 explodes, will anyone be there to notice?

When the Doomsday machine is going to go slicing up planets right through the middle of the galaxy, will Kirk even know Commodore Decker?  Or is Decker a punk too?  Will they be able to find an actor as talented as William Windom to play that part, so that you could see the absolute horror of this machine on his face before ever seeing the cheesy, sparkling ice-cream cone that played the part of the machine?  Will anyone be able to say, convincingly, "They say there's no Devil Jim, but there is!  I saw it, straight out of Hell, I saw it!"

Well, none of that really matters anymore I guess.  Maybe all of it will happen.  Maybe none of it.  But one thing is for sure:  I'm still waiting for the story of how MY Kirk and MY Spock end up friends!

Abram's f'd me at the drive through, just like they did to Joe Peschi in Lethal Weapon.

And that's all I have to say about that.

No Right Is Absolute

One of the things I try and teach the Scouts in my Citizenship in the Nation class is that there is no such thing as an absolute right.  The classic example is that you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (unless of course there is one).  In that spirit, I think we should reexamine all of our rights in the Bill of Rights as they exist in the Constitution, and determine what our new standard should be, in light of the provisions of the new Connecticut Assault Weapons ban... or as it is actually called, "An Act Concerning Gun Violence Protection and Children's Safety"

Let's start with the easy one:.  Background checks.  Clearly some forms of speech can incite violence, or cause irreparable harm to people, especially children.  We've seen what can happen when a child is bullied, or cyber-bullied.  We've written laws about it, none of which seem to have helped.  So it's clear that to solve this problem, we should require a simple, instant background check before anyone is allowed to speak.  To those that would say this requirement is too onerous, I would ask why children should be allowed to be bullied?

Let's move on.  Finger printing.  In Connecticut, you have to submit to finger printing in order to qualify for a pistol permit.  This is an excellent idea that we can apply to other rights in the Constitution.  For instance, the right to not incriminate yourself is a pesky one.  Did you know that if you are charged with a crime in the US, the prosecution cannot call you to testify at your trial?  Outrageous!  However, we can combat this partially by requiring that all persons in the US be finger printed.  This way, we won't only have the finger prints on file of those that have previously committed crimes, or those that sought a Pistol Permit (or those that wanted to teach, drive a bus, or any number of other jobs).  We will have EVERYONE's fingerprints.  The need for this is supported by the astounding fact that 100% of first time criminal offenders started out as people who had never committed a crime!  To those that would say that finger printing everyone would be too onerous, I would ask if one child's life is saved, isn't that reason enough?

Assault Assemblies.  We have no interest in stopping law abiding people from peaceably assembling.  However, we know that some assemblies lead to speakers inciting violence, protesters defecating in the streets, people squatting in parks in unsanitary conditions that keep other people from enjoying the parks for months at a time, rapes and assaults, and sometimes even rioting. For reference, Google "Occupy."  Because of the risks, it would be prudent to ban certain assemblies altogether.  It is difficult, but not impossible to define an "Assault Assembly."  However, nothing will stop us from doing so.  Probably the best way to do it is to take a cue from the IRS and simply target any assembly organized by a group with "Tea Party" or "Constitution" in it's name.  And once these Assault Assemblies have been defined, we'll be able to make it a felony to participate in one.  Further, we can limit the damage that Assault Assemblies have by banning "high capacity assemblies."  Any assembly of more than 10 people would now be a felony to participate in.  To those that say these bans and limits are too onerous, I would ask how many people you really need in an assembly in order to make your point?

Finally, we should probably start issuing Press Licenses.  It is clear that today's media is in a sorry state of affairs.  They are constantly getting stories wrong, slanting the news, and deceiving people into believing in a particular point of view.  For reference Google either "MSNBC" or "FOX NEWS."  And still they are getting their lunch eaten by a bunch of hack bloggers, and more people now read Facebook than a newspaper.  And to top it off, they can't make ends meet!  Clearly something must be done.  My proposal would be for the government to issue "Press Licenses."  Without a press license, you would not be able to blog, or post an opinion or news story on Facebook.  You'd HAVE to get your news from a government approved source.  This will allow us to remove harmful media outlets, as well as every Tom, Dick, or Moose from posting opinion online.  In fact, the government could do what it did with Marijuana licenses - never issue one.  Then we could all get our news from government press releases.  Everything will be more accurate, and you won't have to think anymore.  To those who would say that such licenses would be too onerous (or dangerous), I would ask that if you have to have a government issued license to drive a car, why can't one be required to report the news?  I mean, more people are killed in auto accidents every year than from all the gun violence combined. 

Welcome to my brave new world.  Be well.

How Dan Malloy Turned Me Into A Gun Nut

Dan - not Dannel - Malloy

Dan Malloy has turned me into a gun nut.  And when I say "gun nut" I mean that in the most respectful way possible. 

How did we get here?  Well, let's start at the beginning (for me, anyway).  When I was young, I was for gun control.  It made sense to me. 

Why should we allow every yahoo to have any gun they wanted?  What would happen if everyone had a gun?  It seemed like regulation was simply prudent.

Then I grew older, had a family, and pretty much my views didn't change.  I had no great desire to shoot or own guns.  So gun control didn't much matter to me.  And so the Federal Assault Weapons ban didn't much bother me.  Seemed on the surface to make sense.

But then a tragedy happened in Connecticut, one that would become national news, and would shake people's beliefs to the core.  It would see an outpouring of grief that hadn't been seen in Connecticut for years. 

I'm speaking, of course, about... the Cheshire home invasion.  For those that don't know, a couple of repeat felony offenders had ended up at the same half way house after being paroled from prison, again, and decided to go on a rampage.  Long story short, they beat the father of this family, Dr. Petit, to within an inch of his life, raped his wife and young daughters, and ended up burning them alive in their own home.  Dr. Petit crawled away and was able to alert police, so that they could apprehend the rapist/murders, and draw chalk outlines around Dr. Petit's family.

Our Democratic General Assembly, which was about to end capital punishment was forced, at Dr. Petit's pleading, to abandon trying to change the capital punishment law.  They did this for a whole year.  Then they repealed the death penalty.  Of course, they let previous convictions stand, but let's face it, no one is going to be executed anymore.

This tragedy shook me to my core.  I resolved that we needed firearms in our house to protect us from gun wielding felons that had been released on parole.  The social contract had finally, irrevocably, broken down in Connecticut.  If we are not prepared to hold felons to long prison sentences, nor provide for an option for capital punishment, the government could no longer claim to be "establishing justice."  With the government breaching it's side of the bargain, I was left with the task of securing the well being of my own family as best I knew how.

But my family resisted.  Neither my wife, nor my daughters wanted to have guns in the house.  I can't blame them.  I really didn't want them either.  I wanted my government to protect my civil liberties, and I wanted them to protect my family from criminals.  But that was no longer an option.  My wife proposed the idea of a guard dog.  In fact, I came home from Boy Scout camp early, so I could be introduced to the new candidate.  You should understand that I'm allergic to about half the dogs I've met in my life.  So getting a hypoallergenic guard dog was important.

Molly and Sierra

They selected a guard dog.  She's pictured here.  Her name is Molly and she is a Bichon Frise.  I raised an eyebrow at the smiling ladies in my family and let them know that I was reserving the right to buy a firearm if she didn't turn out to be the ferocious guard dog she was billed as.  Suffice to say, that we guard her quite well!

Still, I put off the purchase of a gun.  Truth be told, I didn't know much about them.  I knew that to get a handgun, I would have to submit to finger printing.  I've gone my whole life without being fingerprinted.  I had hoped to finish my life without having done so.  So I slowly researched long guns for home defense.  A shot gun seemed prudent.  I thought I didn't want a rifle, as I was worried about over penetration.  But through it all, I figured I had time...

Fast forward to the tragedy you thought I was talking about above... Sandy Hook.  Gun fever took off in the aftermath.  People started buying guns like crazy, especially AR-15 and AK and SKS guns.  They were already the most popular guns around.  And I didn't want one.  They seemed overpriced, and, well, soulless... made for one thing, killing 2 legged creatures. 

The gun control people gathered and protested.  The gun rights people gathered and protested.  And I figured that they'd end up with something fairly even handed - background checks (not finger printing) and the scariest of the scary guns banned.  In hindsight, I don't know why I thought this, but that is what I thought.  I had gun enthusiasts - Hubbs, Josh, Mike - tell me I should be worried.  But I figured they were gun nuts (the bad meaning) and that they were overreacting.  How bad could it be?

Well, they were right and I was wrong.  It's bad.  Really bad.  For instance, until October 1st, you can still buy a long gun without a pistol permit, but you ultimately will need one to buy ammo, or take your gun to a shooting range, etc.  And when I say long gun, what I really mean to say is your "bolt action" or "lever action" rifle.  The "assault weapons" ban names all kinds of guns that are NOT assault rifles.  Some are long guns that shoot handgun bullets like 9mm or .45 caliber pistol bullets.  You can still buy the pistol that shoots these, but not a rifle that does.  Why?  The only explanation I've found is that these guns were used by the Columbine shooters, so they banned them all. 

Ruger Mini-14 Ranch

As far as I can tell, there is only one gun allowed under the CT AWB that is both semi-automatic AND has detachable magazines.  That is the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rife.   It can't have a flash suppressor, or a pistol grip.  It can't have the 20 round magazine because that is now a "high capacity" magazine.  It shoots the same ammunition as an AR-15, but because it doesn't have a pistol grip (which arguably makes the firearm safer), it is legal.  Why didn't they just ban this one too by name?  My guess is that it is to keep the lawsuits at bay - if you ban an entire class of weapon, like handguns in Washington DC were, then you step into some very unconstitutional ground.  This gun is now the model for how other gun companies will "get around" the CT AWB.

What is VERY interesting is that you can't actually buy this gun in Connecticut right now.  Go ahead.  Try.  I did.  Cabelas doesn't have them, Hoffman doesn't have them, the other gun shops in CT don't have them, Walmart (in Lisbon and Torrington, where Walmart still sells rifles) don't have them.  Not only don't they have them, they don't know when they'll be getting more, nor will they order them for you, or even put your name on a waiting list.  You can buy them online and have them sent here.  The prices 6 months ago for this gun was about $675.  You'll pay over a $1000 for one online now.

Now, if you decide to wait, you'll run the risk of running into the October 1st date.  Then you'll have to wait to buy the gun until you have a pistol permit.  My advice is to go get one of these now.  I'm working on it and will soon go through the whole "well regulated militia" gauntlet, just to own a pistol that you used to be able to get for a Christmas or birthday present.

Or pay the Internet price and have it shipped to an FFL here in CT.  You'll pay a transfer fee ($50ish) plus shipping and insurance.  But at least you'll have one.  Or you can do what I did, which was calling around to every gun store in New Hampshire to find one in stock and at a decent price.  Still have to do the transfer and the 15 day waiting period.  But I'll have one before May is out, and I won't have to worry about not being able to get one.

But the real tragedy here for me personally is that I'm no longer picky about my finger prints going into IAFIS.  I'll have that pistol permit.  And I'll buy a pistol, maybe two.  Do I need them?  I hope not.  Will I get them anyway?  You bet.  Why?  Because I'm not going to get caught flat-footed again.  I'm not going to have the gun control folks limit magazine sizes down to 7 bullets like NY did.  I'm not going to get caught unable to buy a handgun (except the 5 shot .22 one they still allow for Constitutional reasons) - I'm going to have them now, and they'll be grandfathered in, just like all the ARs that the "gun nuts" went out and bought pre-ban, that they now get to keep. 

Gun control turned me into a gun nut.  A rational, intelligent gun nut that is now committed to making sure that I'm not going to get left out in the cold again.

Odd or Interesting Things

Here is my latest thoughts on the passing scene:

• The Journal Inquirer, my local newspaper, has been taking out full page ads in every issue in an attempt to get people to guarantee that public notices continue to get published (and paid for) by local government.  From their ads, it would seem that Democracy itself hangs in the balance, when in fact all that is really hanging in the balance is a cash cow that is going to stop giving the JI it's daily milk delivery.
• Connecticut has a new gun law that has absolutely no hope of controlling crime, nor stopping the massacre in whose name it was passed.  And our Governor has lied obviously and publicly about that fact, to thunderous applause.  Is this how Democracy really dies?
• Baby chickens double in size every two days, and eat and poop their weight daily.
• It is best not to store your snowblower in a mice infested shed during the summer.  If you do, one or more of them will take up residence in the engine cowling, and then snack on your ignition wire.  This will cause great frustration in the following winter when your snowblower seems to randomly die after 30 inches of snow fall on your driveway.
• Shooting guns is fun!  However, 12 gauge shotguns can leave a bruise on your shoulder if you don't hold it right.  And a Colt .45 doesn't have nearly as much recoil as everyone seems to say it does.  On the other hand, Clint Eastwood was right when he said that a .44 Magnum would "blow your head clean off"
• To the folks who say we should not put armed guards in schools, should we then eliminate SRO (police officers) from schools?  Do they make high schools look like prisons?
• Our cars are ever more reliable, and complicated.  This is great when everything works right.  When it doesn't, boy is it hard to figure out what is wrong.
• Mad Men is a great show.  Even when it sucks, its good.