I’ve been looking for this version of the following document for a while — there’s a few lines of text that have been changed from it in subsequent versions, such as the one I posted previously. This one is as close to the original that I discovered and reposted back in 2000, complete with the occasional errors in the HTML coding (look for the fractions at certain points of the text).

I found this little gem of an article at the Federation of American Scientists’ site — http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarms/discus-1.htm. For what it’s worth, don’t look to the FAS to defend the right to keep and bear arms, either.

My previous comments stand today just as much today as during the Bush Administration when I first posted this little gem of hoplophobia to various gun-related message boards and Yahoo! lists. If not moreso, considering The Barack‘s desires for more and more victim disarmament — there’s HR 45 and his stated desire to renew the 1994 “assault weapon” ban, as well as his plan to sign and ratify and the CIFTA Treaty. Add to that Jackboot Janet II (Napolitano ^[1])’s reports about “right-wing extremists” and Rahm Emanuel’s suggestion to bar anyone on the “no-fly” list from owning firearms.

Here’s the line from the first version I found that went missing from following versions —

Such weapons distort societies, they make it increasingly difficult for a society to rebuild itself following a period of bloody conflict, they make it harder for the State to regain the legitimate monopoly of force, they enhance the capabilities of criminals, thus compromising the effectiveness of police forces and encouraging law-abiding civilians to arm themselves for protection, they lower the threshold for violence and they are very easy for children to obtain and use.
[Emphasis mine -- see here for where that line pops up in the actual text.]

And that’s what it’s alll about for a lot of these folks — gaining (or regaining) and retaining that “legitimate monopoly of force.” Think about that phrase — “monopoly” means the following –

1. A situation, by legal privilege or other agreement, in which solely one party (company, cartel etc.) exclusively provides a particular product or service, dominating that market and generally exerting powerful control over it.
2. An exclusive control over the trade or production of a commodity or service through exclusive possession.
3. The privilege granting the exlusive right to exert such control

Meaning, if you aren’t in the club that’s been granted that monopoly, you’ll have limited access at best to the commodity in question.

Since the “commodity” I’m talking about here is the use of physical force for self-defense, well, that physical force is what they want a monopoly over.

Does it matter to them if you need an AK-47 to protect your family from roving bandits, as many do in sub-Saharan Africa? Not in the slightest, and all in the name of “protecting” you from those same criminals.

Why does it not concern them if you are killed by criminals, so long as you remain unarmed?

How else are they going to use you for their purposes as a lab rat or production unit? If you’re armed, you might pose a threat when they show up at your front door, ready to put you to work, seize your assets, or enroll you in their latest social-engineering scheme.

This embryonic campaign, now a collaboration between governments, NGOs and IGOs, is exciting because it stems more from the humanitarian action and health communities than it does from the disarmament sector. The focus of the campaign is on what is needed rather than what is thought to be politically possible.

We have written this discussion paper in order to assist and the growing debate on military-style weapons. There is a strong urgency associated with this process. While we dither people are dying and being in injured in large numbers. Societies are being destroyed and futures are being ruined. We realise that a serious campaign could well use the 2001 small arms conference as its springboard and urge that action is taken before then to ensure maximum support for this process.

Of all of the small arms that are killing and maiming people throughout the world, military and military-style automatic weapons are as terrible as landmines in their devastating effects. Like landmines, their destructive power far outlasts the conflicts they were originally designed to fight.

These weapons are made for war. They have been designed to be used by trained military personnel. However they have spread well beyond their intended clientele, into the hands of the illicit arms traders. Their abundance and firepower can exacerbate violent conflict, prolong the fighting, increase the participation of civilians and make conflict resolution even more difficult.

This is a humanitarian issue of the first order. Bringing to bear a humanitarian/human rights focus on the small arms efforts in the international arena ¾ and thus concentrating on the spread, use and individual solutions to the problem of military style weapons in civilian hands ¾ may succeed in removing one of the most deadly threats to people in the world today.

The legacy of military style weapons is seen on the streets of countries in Africa, Latin America, South Asia, Central Asia, Europe, the Middle East and South East Asia where they can prolong conflicts, and propagate the interests of organized and opportunistic criminals. In other regions, such as North America, Western Europe or Oceania, their widespread availability has landed them onto the streets of cities to serve the purposes of organized crime and the drug barons. In some cases they have found their way into the hands of unstable individuals with tragic consequences. They have played a central role in destabilising civil law and order where its grip is often tenuous.

They are used in small and large-scale conflicts throughout the world.  They include arms such as Kalashnikovs, G-3s, M-16s and FN FALs.  What makes them so dangerous is that they are highly destructive, with a rapid rate of fire, powerful, easy to use, inexpensive and in abundance. For example, it is estimated that more than 70 million assault rifles have been produced since World War II and used in well over 90 countries

Their ease of use and widespread availability makes it more likely that civilians will be drawn into war-fighting. This is particularly true for young people because these weapons require very little skill and training to use and their small size means that they can be carried and used even by children.

Military-style weapons are a threat to people in war-ravaged societies. When they remain in the hands of ex-combatants following a conflict they continue to keep the violence-threshold low and increase the likelihood of a return to full-scale violence, thus perpetuating conflicts.

Not only do these weapons find their way into conflict zones and into the hands of civilian combatants, but they also turn up in weak or failed states, in states with permissive legislation (where they can be legally-held) or poorly-enforced legislation and in states with paramilitary forces, terrorist groups and uncontrolled reserve militia.

The presence of military-style weapons in the hands of civilians not only has an impact in terms of the direct humanitarian effects (deaths, terrible injuries, long-term disabilities and so on) but this situation can severely undermine the delivery of humanitarian assistance in conflict zones and in refugee camps by compromising the security of personnel who are working in vital humanitarian assistance.

They are transferred through both licit and illicit means, through brokers, through the illegal sale of legal military equipment by the armed forces, police and corrupt officials.  Once in the illegal market they can be bought at very low prices or they are stolen ¾ such crimes going unreported. Primarily, they are bought or stolen because of a perceived need – a need to fight or protect, a need to gain status, provide food and security, a need to dominate in the face of scarce resources.

Solutions

This is such a complex and widespread problem that there is no one solution or approach. There have to be regional, subregional, national, unilateral, multilateral, bilateral, global approaches working in tandem in the hope of making some dent in the problem.

It has to be acknowledged at the outset that none of these approaches can be fool-proof or leak-proof. Most solutions to these problems can only be significant in the long run, and success will vary according to context, but fewer people will die, fewer people will be maimed and, where conflict-prevention fails, societies will more easily rebuild themselves after violent conflicts.

1. Banning sales to non-State actors?

One solution would be to have national, international and regional agreements or codes-of-conduct on selling military weapons to regular armed forces only.

The big problem with this idea is that there are sometimes strong reasons for non-state actors to require such weapons in order, for example, to overthrow an illegitimate, cruel and corrupt government when non-violent means have been exhausted etc.  In addition, there are many concerns as to who would impose such bans and who would monitor them.

There are arguments, however, that such concerns are over-emphasised. Certainly, with a handful of significant exceptions, violent overthrows of corrupt regimes often end up with equally corrupt and inhumane successor regimes. Non-violent pressure is often far more successful in achieving the long-term progress of a country than armed struggle. In addition, the atrocities committed by paramilitaries, particularly those that have recruited children as combatants, have been so horrific that curbs on sales of military weapons to non-state actors may have to be considered as one of the approaches to be taken, with some provision for an exemption clause depending on agreement within the international community.

2. Breaking the chain

Destroying surplus weapons and stockpile management

Dealing with surplus weapons has two main aspects. The first is for governments to destroy weapons deemed obsolete or in excess to national needs, rather than sell them. This may not always be easy, particularly in countries in which governments themselves do not keep precise accounts of their own inventories or in countries where sales or surplus weapons are used to fund purchase of new weapons. Some countries may also lack the means for effective and environmentally friendly means of destroying surplus weapons and their associated ammunition. Both inventories and destruction techniques and equipment may sometimes require the provision of specialised assistance from states and companies (often the major arms manufacturers themselves) with more experience in these matters. This applies particularly to ammunition.  However, for the weapons themselves, simple destruction by crushing and burning by local factories and foundries may well suffice. Indeed, experience shows that the political process of obtaining agreement to begin a weapons-collection programme and the organization of the programme itself is the most difficult part. However, a weapons collection programme that doesn’t include a destruction phase, is vulnerable to becoming a focal point for the illicit redistribution of the weapons once collected.

The only way of ensuring that military small arms do not fall into the wrong hands is to make sure that they are securely held and accounted for by legitimate state authorities, and better still, that they are destroyed if and when the state no longer requires them. International or regional standards and regulations could be developed to assist in proper stockpile management. South Africa’s initiative to destroy its redundant stockpile of weapons, and the assistance provided by Norway to that end, are recent experiences from which lessons and inspiration should be derived in other national and regional settings.

The second aspect is more difficult. It would involve the mopping up of automatic weapons currently in the hands of civilians, as a prelude to their destruction. Cash for weapons is an option that raises well-known problems. Weapons for goods and services, in particular “weapons for development” seem more promising. Such an approach requires the collective approval of a community, individuals are not rewarded ¾ rather the village or region obtains something for the collective good. Those handing in the weapons are then seen as contributing to the community, whereas before they may have been seen as people bringing terror and crime into the area. This option presupposes an accurate identification of genuine and practical development needs in order to offer useful and attractive incentives for civilians to hand in their weapons and that these needs will contribute to genuinely permanent solutions. Above all, it also presupposes the ability of the State to provide adequate protection for civilians and for the development projects themselves.

National, regional and international attempts to increase transparency and to develop transnational systems for tracing military style weapons transfers, along with legal measures to prohibit civilian possession could be developed. Multilateral, bilateral and unilateral measures could all work in parallel on the different regional levels, depending on the requirements of the varying situations.

3. Brokering

Brokers trading in weapons, as they would in any other commodities, commonly act as legal and illegal purveyors of small arms to regions, countries and factions in conflict. Customers desperate for weapons can be expected to pay a premium for arms provided in this way. Such brokering is unregulated and difficult to trace because most countries lack legislation covering such activities by their own nationals, and because fake documentation (especially end-user certificates) is easily obtained from corruptible officials. Transactions typically involve several countries as transit points both for the weapons and for funds, without the weapons transiting through the country from which the broker operates.

Adequate national legislation should require the registration and licensing of brokers, whether operating from their own country or from abroad. This will require international cooperation and information exchange.  They should be held responsible for any unlicensed activity, or for contravening export-control laws and international embargoes. Such strictures should apply equally to brokering in weapons and in ammunition. The development of an international agreement to increase transparency and to regulate the activities of arms brokers, agents and transport companies, could be seriously considered – ¾ including the concerns over the use of brokers by governments in order to cover-up illegal sales.

4. Ammunition control

The 7.62 or 5.56 calibre ammunition for military-style automatic rifles is widely produced and traded. In conflict situations, it is used in large quantities. Regulating its supply from both domestic and foreign suppliers could therefore assist in reducing the incidence of violence and the duration and destructiveness of conflicts. Where weapons are widespread and offer no immediate hope for successful mopping up, and where combatants require resupplies in ammunition, restricting ammunition supplies can be the only significant option. Reducing the ease with which ammunition can be acquired can also make it less attractive for former combatants and civilians to retain their weapons in post-conflict situations. As with the weapons themselves, legal governmental stockpiles of ammunition need to be properly managed and accounted for so as to increase the legitimate control of stocks. Ammunition stocks need to be regularly monitored and surplus and obsolete along with unusable and unstable stocks need to be destroyed rather then sold off.

5. Civil society campaign

One of the great difficulties with the debates around controlling small arms and light weapons is the large numbers of legal, about-to-become-illegal and illegal weapons in circulation and the complexities involved that are raised by increased availability ¾ not least of which is the often understandable need for such weapons in a number of situations.  This has made it easy for opponents of small arms control in any form to knock down initiatives and ideas as quickly as they spring up.  It has also meant that it has been hard to find a collective focus for a civil society-based campaign on the issue, with NGOs working on a myriad of scattered initiatives, and often seeming to be running around in circles.

In addition, it has proved extraordinarily difficult to gather reliable data on the types and quantities of small arms that are in existence and that are doing the damage.

However, both from quantitative research and strong anecdotal evidence, there is clearly a major problem with military weapons in the hands of civilians as outlined above.

If a concerted campaign were to be formed to remove such weapons from civilian hands this would have a number of distinct advantages:

The time seems to be ripe for a different approach to small arms control. This approach should be focused on the weapons that are doing most harm to people and their security. Efforts in small arms control, such as marking, tracking, ammunition control, production control could all form part of this approach, but only as part of a bigger whole, driven by humanitarian needs. Such efforts then would no longer be perceived as tinkering at the edges of the problem, rather their efficacy could be determined in the light of the larger goal. Tackling civilian-held, military-style weapons may provide an approach that could strike to the heart of the problem, obtain global and regional support, provide a focus for governmental and non-governmental action and achieve lasting good.

First, let me start off by saying that I posted a suggestion to the Featured Questions page, and the staff at Xanga posted as one of the daily questions.

WAY COOL! (This is my first time being featured like this, so cut me some slack here, OK?)

Anyway, to answer my own question –

In 1989, I started as a computer user with a Tandy 1000 series computer, using MS-DOS 2.0, if I recall correctly. Back then, Tandy was a part of Radio Shack, but not fully integrated into it, and as such, had its own brand name for computers. With the Tandy 1000 series came their own version of a graphical user interface (GUI), which operated mostly from the keyboard. It was using that system that I learned the ins and outs of the DOS command-line interface — copying and deleting files, etc.

My experience with Windows started in July, 1998, when I bought a modern-style PC. I learned the hard way what a pain in the ass Windows can be from the beginning, as the guy who sold it to me installed a bootleg copy of Windows 95 on it. I had some problems there, and tried “fixing” them by upgrading to Windows 98. When that didn’t work, I ponied up for a full edition of that disaster-on-a-CD-ROM.

Fast-forward to 2001 — I bought a copy of Windows 2000 Pro at the local Staples, and it beat the crap out of Win-98. (I still have that CD, by the way.)

Now I’m using a combination of Windows XP and Ubuntu. I’ve played around with Knoppix, OpenSuse and Suse Enterprise Desktop, while using a version of Red Hat at work for the past four years.

     I just answered this Featured Question; you can answer it too!

Interesting thing happened today — apparently Kim Jong Il decided to celebrate Memorial Day with some fireworks of his own — the kind that gives The Barack the screaming heebie-jeebies.

Specifically, according to the London Telegraph and New York Times,  the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” detonated a nuclear device today.

NO, Kim Jong Il doesn’t specifically want to nuke America or anyone else, whether to spread his Stalinist / Maoist version of communism, as that sort of thing is out of favor with his long-standing buddies in Beijing.

The REAL reason that he wants nukes is that a nuclear arsenal is a membership card in the geopolitical Don’t Fuck With Me Club, and he doesn’t want The Barack or the South Koreans depriving him of his subsidized frat-boy lifestyle of booze, drugs, porn and hookers by instituting Iraq-style “regime change.”

Those looking for such change need only wait until he croaks from an overdose and/or alcohol poisoning. In the mean time, China might continue to be the first Communist nation in history have an illegal immigrant “problem.” And South Korea, despite its heavily regulated economy, will continue to have a GNP thirty times the size of North Korea’s.

Thanks to “SwearNoAllegiance” for the tip.

And it’s pronounced “nu-cle-ar,” not “nuk-u-lar.”

Last week, a customer at the store where I work requested that I give her a plastic shopping bag, so that her daughter, four years old at the most, could have something to play with.

So much for all the advisories and admonishments about “These bags are not toys” and “don’t let your kids play with bags.”

> This is from an article in the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday.
>
> The Business Section asked readers for ideas on “How Would You Fix the Economy?”
>
> I think this guy ^[1] nailed it!
>
> Dear Mr. President:
>
> Please find below my suggestion for fixing America’s economy.
> Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander
> the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.
>
> You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:
>
> There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force.
>
> Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:
>
> 1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings — Unemployment fixed.
>
> 2) They MUST buy a new American CAR. Forty million cars ordered — Auto Industry fixed.

The bailout of Ford, GM and Chrysler didn’t fix that? Imagine that!

> 3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage — Housing Crisis fixed.

The Bush / McCain / Obama bailout of October and November, 2008 didn’t fix it? What happened? How ever could it have gone wrong?

> It can’t get any easier than that!
>
> If more money is needed, have all members of Congress and their constituents pay their taxes . . .

Yeah! We can “soak the rich” and “make them pay their fair share” (again!).

Just consider that anyone who can afford a one-way ticket out of the country will most likely be buying one should this plan pass.

But that would “save” the travel industry, wouldn’t it?

> If you think this would work, please forward to everyone you know.

I think it’s bat-shit insane –

40,000,000 people x 1,000,000 FRNs (“US dollars” ^[2]) / person over fifty = 40,000,000,000,000 FRN

That’s FORTY TRILLION bucks.

Obama won’t have any choice but to use hyperinflation to make this excuse for a “plan” happen. Then we’ll all be carrying our cash around in wheelbarrows, and the crooks will steal the wheelbarrows, leaving us the now-worthless cash.

This is what happened in Germany following the 1929 Panic, i.e. “Great Depression.”

This is what Mugabe was doing in Zimbabwe recently with his “trillion dollar” bills.

Instead of having the federal government and the Federal Reserve print up the cash, DO IT YOURSELF!

What the Fed and Bureau of Engraving and Printing should do is set up a series of servers hosting only a collection of web pages. On each of those pages are .jpg images of each demonination of Federal Reserve Note. These pages would be fully accessible, saveable and printable by the general public.

This way, people could save the images to their personal hard drives at home, and using their home computers, print out as much cash as needed on demand.

THINK OF THE SAVINGS!

No longer will the Fed and the Government need to expend resources on printing the bills, transporting them to banks for distribution, or safeguarding them in transit.

WE’LL ALL BE RICH!

And to top it all off, there’s no need to print all the zeroes on the bills — just use scientific notation. “10¹⁵” and “10¹⁸” work a whole lot better than “1,000,000,000,000,000″ and “1,000,000,000,000,000,000,” in that there’s only so much space on the physical bill and all those zeroes take up a good bit of it that could be better used for pretty artwork.

If everyone does his and her duty to the nation and prints enough cash to take care of all their needs, we can take care of the Patriotic Retirement Plan out of petty cash.

NOTES

1. The idiot in question is named David Otterson of Largo, Florida
2. Where do I get this “Federal Reserve Note” stuff? Look at the words printed across the top of every bill put out by the BEP and you’ll find it.

I’ve been seeing more and more of Adam Kokesh on the web, and I like what I see from him more and more.

For those who don’t know, Adam is considering a run for U.S. Congress in New Mexico’s Third District, against the incumbent, Ben Ray Lujan.

Will the GOPNM get behind Adam for his run? I can’t really say for sure — the Republican Party of New Mexico has definitely supported its share of big-government candidates — Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici come to mind there. The GOPNM has supported its share of losers in the 3rd District, as well –

• F. Gregg Bemis Jr. got an “F” rating from GOA in the 1994 race, while Bill Richardson got a “C.”
• Dan East ran in 2008 as a typical Bushevik neo-con, supporting the Iraq Occupation and waffling on the Second Amendment.

As for his opponent, Ben Ray Lujan, well . . . Ben Ray is the poster boy for New Mexico’s patron system, where it helps A LOT to know someone who’s politically connected, and it helps EVEN MORE if you can grease the right palms (cash ØØØØ only, please!) — especially if you’re seeking government-sector employment or contracts. After all, his old man, Ben Lujan Sr., IS the Speaker of New Mexico’s State House of Representatives. The scuttlebutt in some circles seems to be that Ben Ray wouldn’t have received the Democratic nomination for the Third District if his daddy wasn’t the Speaker.

And I can’t resist posting this image of a campaign T-shirt — it’s PURE GENIUS!

Adam’s blog — Kokesh for Congress

And don’t forget to visit his Money bomb site!

Reposted here to the NM Linux Fest site.

While I sympathize with the black African-American population’s exuberance for The Barack after His (s)election to the White House ^[1], still . . . aren’t there any other black people that could have been elected besides this clown?

And NO, I’m NOT suggesting Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Cornel West as potential candidates for my support.

Seriously, what was wrong with the idea of supporting a candidacy by, say, Dr. Walter E. Williams or Wesley Snipes ^[2] for the spot?

Anyone looking to oppose The Barack need only look to his policies — there’s plenty to go against there without getting racial or digging into his sex life or past.

For example –

• It seems that The Barack never met a restriction on privately-owned firearms that he didn’t support.
• He campaigned during 2007 and 2008 on the issue of ending the Iraq Occupation and bringing the troops home, yet, He’s maintaining a presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq, while sending others from Iraq to expand operations in Afghanistan.
• His inflationary deficit spending will wipe out any tax cuts he gets passed through the Congress.
• He wants to tax the bejesus out of anyone making “too much” money, as they should “pay their fair share.” How many employers will leave the country over this one?
• Jackboot Janet II, his Reichsfuhrer for the Heimatschutzministerium ^[3] issued a report labeling anyone who is a veteran, Constitutionalist, Ron Paul supporter, etc., as a “right wing extremist,” implying that such “RWEs” are potential terrorists.

I’m sure that this list will grow and grow as the years go on.

1. Obama is only half-black, actually.
2. Some might point to Snipes’ recent tax conviction as a reason not to support him. I thin that would be another reason to support him — the fact that he stood his ground vs. the IRS. Add to the fact that the IRA had run candidates for office while those people were in British prisons — Bobby Sands was elected to the British Parliament while in Long Kesh
3. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimatschutzministerium

Cute title — McDonald’s – The Next Hitler.

My comment –

Every time I go by a McDonalds location, I have to dodge the employees that attempt to drag me inside by force.

I hear they’re planning to set up roadblocks to channel traffic so that the only escape route is through their drive-through lane.

Seriously.

Thanks go to romans-837 for pointing out Godwin’s Law for the readers.

I just spent the last 30-45 minutes going through my notifications on MyYearbook — I had 15 pages of notifications about “high-fives,” “gold stars,” “stickers,” cookie-cutter “flirts” and such there.

Rather than trying to respond to about 600 such messages, I simply decided to delete anything from a “VIP Club” member.

Doing that, I cut it down from 15 pages to two pages.

I just don’t get the “VIP” thing there, and I don’t see myself whipping out the plastic to join up. If that’s what it’s all about — loading up your “Friends’” inboxes with messages — well . . . . I’m there to meet real people. The online flirting gig only works for a little bit — I need and want the real thing — face-to-face, in-person contact.

Here’s the basics of the “VIP Club” and here are the details.

So basically, what MyYearbook’s VIP Club offers are more opportunities to fill up the inboxes of your “Friends” across the country with “flirts,” “gold stars,” etc., usually with a “HIT ME BACK,” “RTF PLZ” message attached. Thanks but no thanks to that plan.

And here I was thinking that at least 98 percent of the “Battles” there (where you can put your picture against someone else’s, and others vote on which one is better ^[1]) were inane . . .

Due to this, I’m considering dumping anyone with the little “VIP” icon under their picture link from my “Friends” list.

If that doesn’t work, what’s my reason to stay on MyYearbook?

I probably won’t delete my profile there. I’ll just go inactive for the most part, checking in maybe once a month if that — like I do with Myspace at present.

NOTES

1. Apparently, there’s a whole sort of ethics and such about who to vote for or against in the “Battles” there, concerning loyalties, favors granted and requested, etc., etc. More on that in a separate blog post.