11:30 p.m.

• So I read this hippie op-ed column in the local paper earlier this week and it’s still on my mind. It’s some commie who used to work at CNN and he’s talking about how “liberalism” really doesn’t exist anymore and blah blah blah. The part that made me laugh (the most) was the following:

There is, however, something deeply troubling in the new conservative triumphalism. It is an uncritical, unthinking damnation of anything liberal. When I suggest to conservative friends that if they really loathe liberalism, they should forfeit their access to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, I am met with stony silence. There's no denying that tens of millions of conservative Americans live better lives because of the liberal initiatives of an earlier generation.

Sony silence? I guess your “conservative friends” aren’t that quick on the ball to respond by saying, “Sure, but only if I get my money back from the years I put into these Ponzi schemes.” I mean that “Well then don’t collect Social Security” attempt at shutting up Big Government dissenters is almost as easy to diffuse as when some idiot says, “If you’re against abortion how come you’re for capital punishment?” Then there’s the oldie but goldie “WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB?!” (Uh, I don’t know about ol’ Jesus, but his old man was one heck of a hell raiser. Noah didn’t build that boat for nothing.)

11:59 p.m.

• This story has irked me for some time. Long story short: Back in ’04 my state Senator, some liberal faggot by the name of Alan Kukovich, lost to a Republican named Bob Regola. Now Regola really wasn’t a Republican – he had been a conservative Democrat but switched to the GOP ticket in hopes of beating this left-wing bitch in a general election rather than a primary. Shortly after this upset, some little shit named Louis Farrell, Regola’s 14-year old next door neighbor was found dead with Regola’s gun. Here’s the story for those that care:

Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck, in 53 pages of legal arguments filed this week, said there is little doubt that state Sen. Robert Regola committed a crime by allowing his teenage son to have access to a handgun.

 

"(The) Defendant provided a gun to a child, which is a felony. The gun was an unlocked, semi-automatic handgun, kept in the same case with its clip, which was loaded and (with) a box of ammunition. Defendant proceeded to invite other children into his home, unsupervised," Peck wrote.

 

The brief was filed in response to similar briefings submitted earlier this month by Regola's defense team, which is attempting to have felony perjury charges, a felony gun offense and a misdemeanor reckless endangerment charge dismissed.

 

Regola's trial is tentatively scheduled to begin in May.

 

Regola, 45, could be disqualified from serving in the Senate if he is convicted of a felony. The freshman senator from Hempfield is seeking his second term this year.

 

Regola was charged last year in the July 2006 shooting death of his 14-year-old next-door neighbor, Louis Farrell. The Regolas had given Farrell access to their home to feed the family dogs while the senator and his wife were in Harrisburg.

 

Farrell's body was discovered in the woods behind his home with a bullet wound in the head. Authorities said Farrell shot himself with Regola's 9 mm Taurus handgun.

 

Regola contends the charges against him cannot be substantiated.

 

A defense brief filed Feb. 29 contends Regola did not put Farrell in danger because the senator was unaware Farrell knew about the gun. It claimed the senator had no obligation to call the Farrell family on the night of July 21, 2006, when Regola learned that the gun was missing.

 

"The conduct that placed Louis Farrell in danger was his own conduct, and not the senator's failure to place a call when he would have no reason to believe that Louis Farrell would have taken the gun from the senator's bedroom," defense attorney Charles J. Porter wrote.

 

Regola has challenged the gun offense, arguing that the charge itself is unconstitutional and that he has the right to allow his son to have access to the weapon for self-defense.

 

In his response, Peck argued that self-defense concerns do not trump the law.

 

He said state law specifically precludes adults from allowing juveniles to have access to guns because there are inherent risks in doing so. Those risks include a child's fascination with guns and an expectation that children would not be able to resist an urge to handle, examine and exhibit the weapon to friends.

 

"As an adult member of society defendant is aware of these risks the same way we all are. But the reasonable inference is that, as a father of three and a state legislator, he has greater awareness of issues related to health, safety and public welfare," Peck wrote.

 

Prosecutors contend Regola initially told police he kept the gun under his son's bed. Regola later testified during a coroner's inquest last year that the gun was stored under his bed and never kept by his son, who then was 16. He denied ever keeping the gun in his son's room.

 

That discrepancy is the basis for the perjury charges.

 

Robert "Bobby" Regola, now 18, was convicted last year in juvenile court of a misdemeanor illegal possession of a firearm and was sentenced to serve one year on probation.

Now I’ve said before I’m not a gun owner (although many a day goes by when I wonder why), but if you have a gun in your house for protection, wouldn’t it be pointless to lock it up? If it’s 3 a.m. and you hear someone breaking through your living room window, I don’t think you’d have enough time to wake up, get the key to your gun box, open the box, remove the trigger lock, put in the bullets and then go hunting for the person breaking into your house. To me this whole thing smells like a witch hunt and I will gladly vote for Regola should he run again. And this whole perjury thing isn’t jiving with me. OMG he first said the gun was under his kid’s bed then later under his bed. N*gga plz. I’m not defending him because of his party affiliation – I’m defending him because I think it’s bullshit that you can get in trouble for daring to have a weapon to protect your property easily accessible (it’s not like the gun was kept out on the living room coffee table next to the TV Guide). My only regret in this whole story is that that little bastard didn’t just lay down in front of a moving train. (That line went over REAL well a year or two ago when I was in a local doctor’s office with the better half, and some old guy, who made it obvious he didn’t care for Regola, was giving us his opinion on this matter.)