Gunner has the skinny on hitting The Plain Dealer where it counts.

The mayor of Smyrna, TN wants to register vicious dogs:

People who own pit bulls or other breeds officials deem vicious may have to register the animals with the town if a proposal by Mayor Bob Spivey is approved.

The proposal was discussed Thursday during the Smyrna Town Council workshop.

Rutherford County Animal Control officials said they feel their hands are tied in protecting people and other animals from hostile dogs because of weak state laws.

What are these weak state laws? Apparently, these weak state laws don’t assume a dog is vicious until the dog is, you know, vicious. It boils down to breed specific legislation:

That’s why Spivey said he wants Smyrna to expand its existing animal ordinances to mandate that vicious dogs, and certain breeds, be registered with the town no matter whether the animal has done anything. He specifically mentioned pit bulls as one breed that should be registered.

And as readers here know, breed specific legislation is ineffective.

… using the tombstone generator (via Mike), I created this:

I might be jumping the gun but I think its done.

Triggerfinger reports that the US Census bureau is providing the Department of Homeland Security with information about people who identified themselves as Arab on the 2000 census:

EPIC has obtained documents revealing that the Census Bureau provided the Department of Homeland Security statistical data on people who identified themselves on the 2000 census as being of Arab ancestry. The special tabulations were prepared specifically for the law enforcement agency. There is no indication that the Department of Homeland Security requested similar information about any other ethnic groups.

The article then draws a fairly obvious parallel:

During World War II, the Census Bureau provided statistical information to help the War Department round up more than 120,000 innocent Japanese Americans and confine them to internment camps.

I thought the purpose of the census was a head count to determine representation?

Update: I’m not buying it, but NoQuarters tells us that:

A spokeswoman for Customs and Border Protection told the newspaper the requests were made not for law enforcement purposes, but to help identify in which airports to post signs and pamphlets in Arabic to assist travelers.

Technorati has their political blog section, which is really cool. They have SayUncle classified as a liberal blog. Their links change pretty quick so that may not be there when you click it.

This is abysmal:

Eating en route to or while riding the subway here is a no-no. Stephanie Willett, a government employee, found that out the hard way recently. Finishing a candy bar on her way into a Metro station, she was arrested, handcuffed and detained for three hours.

Willett said she was eating a PayDay bar on an escalator descending into a station July 16 when a transit policeman warned her to finish it before entering the station. Both Willett and police agree that she nodded and put the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into a trash can.

Willett, a 45-year-old Environmental Protection Agency (news – web sites) scientist, told radio station WTOP that the officer then followed her into the station, one of several in downtown Washington.

“Don’t you have some other crimes you have to take care of?” Willett said she told the officer.

Washington has been under heightened security because of the continuing threat of terrorism. And last week, police declared a citywide crime emergency over rising juvenile crime.

The transit police officer asked for Willett’s identification, but Willett kept walking. She said she was then frisked and handcuffed.

“If she had stopped eating, it would have been the end of it and if she had just stopped for the issuance of a citation, she never would have been locked up,” Transit Police Chief Polly Hanson said Thursday.

Arrested for eating a candy bar. Ain’t that America.

They could have shot his ass. Pete details some drug war buffoonery in which the powers that be can’t tell the difference between some flowers and weed.

Robert Douglas has the skinny on a state enforced recall of Massachusetts compliant Glocks, whatever that means.

JTO writes:

On Sept. 13th the law banning 19 Assault Weapons will sunset. The Government is ignoring the loss of life and injury from these weapons.

This week a 12 year old Fremont boy was shot at a family gathering while playing with assault rifles. According to the News Messenger police say there were over 30 different types of weapons seized.

Incidents like this one confirm the opinion of more than 69% of Ohioans surveyed and 87 Ohio police chiefs and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police who favor strengthening the ban. The Washington, D.C.-based Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) commissioned the survey.

I can’t tell from the post if they mean the kid was playing with an assault rifle. Or if he was shot with one while playing. Nowhere in the post does it say what sort of gun it was. Additionally, no one asks why, since there is a ban, he was shot? I am amazed when the opposition proves the ban is ineffective.

On using useless statistics to hammer a point home, the GOA says:

1 — Since the new laws went into effect, there has not been a single massacre of four or more people.

Well, not by guns, but there have been several using knives, carbon monoxide gas and arson reported by the Australian news media.

2 — Homicides committed with firearms have been declining since the 1997 ban took place.

To quote their reference, the Australian Institute of Criminology, “Homicides have been declining since 1969.” Also, keep in mind that Australia’s murder rate dropped 11%, while the U.S. murder rate dropped 32% — even though Americans bought 70 million guns during that same period.

3 — Since the gun ban, Australia has seen a drop in the use of firearms in armed robberies.

It is true, only 6% of the robberies in 2001 involved a firearm. However the robbery rate has risen 70% since the ban went into effect. Australia had a lower crime rate in 1992 than the U.S., now Australia’s combined rate of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force is more than double that of the U.S. (See note.)

4 — Suicide rates using a firearm show a sharp drop after the gun ban.

Duuh! — It’s hard to shoot yourself when you don’t have a gun.

“Suicide rates did not fall, though there was a shift toward less use of guns.”

“The firearm related suicide rate had been falling for ten years before the gun ban.”

The total suicide rate in Australia is over 25% higher than the USA.

It seems that the Democrats are going to use the misunderstood assault weapons ban against their rivals because the ban has popular support:

When former President Bill Clinton sought to frame differences between Democrats and Republicans in his prime-time convention speech Monday, he made a point of citing the soon-to-expire federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

“Our policy was to put more police on the street and to take assault weapons off the street – and it gave you eight years of declining crime and eight years of declining violence,” Clinton said to Democratic cheers. “Their policy is the reverse.”

The ex-president’s charges demonstrated how some Democrats hope to use the assault weapons issue against President Bush and members of Congress in the campaign.

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry supports extending the ban, which is due to expire Sept. 13 unless Congress renews it. Such an extension appears to have public support. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in November found that 78 percent of respondents favored keeping the ban.

But while many Democrats would like to cast the issue in good-versus-evil terms, it’s more complicated than it appears to be, like many matters of public policy.

For one thing, Bush also has expressed support for extending the assault weapons ban since at least the 2000 campaign, putting him on the same side as his Democratic foes, at least rhetorically. Still, critics say Bush is doing nothing to promote an extension of the ban, enabling him to reap the political benefits of his position without upsetting his gun-rights allies.

Some popular support can be attributed to misunderstanding the ban. The questions in polls tend to center around using phrases like do you support a ban on AK47s? and the like. Maybe if the Republicans who oppose the ban spent effort informing people what the ban really did, they could gain some ground or at least expose supporters of the ban for what they really are.

If the SEC investigation results in Krispy Kreme going out of a business, the revolution is on. I can be passionate about donuts. I’m just saying, you know.

The on again/off again KNS DemCon blog has some more entries.

Memo to Tom:

Blogging can be real time and you can post short entries.

Memo to the KNS:

If you need someone to do the RepubliCon, let me or any of these fine people know.

I don’t see what all the hubbub is about, sounds like a weekend drive to me, except for the Arabic books part. No, I kid. That is quite frightening, on the surface. However, it doesn’t appear to me that he was on his way to cause mayhem as the only weapon he had was a 9mm pistol.

Per this:

There has been a sharp increase in the number of sexual offences and gun crime in Ireland, figures revealed today.

Statistics released by the Garda Commissioner confirm that firearms offences have risen by more than 60% compared to the first half of 2003 while the number of female rape cases increased by 27%.

Yahoo has a slideshow from the free speech zones. Some eerie stuff. Notice the military policeman. Whatever happened to Posse Comitatus?

From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress.

Those of us that ordinarily vote Republican, who are disappointed with Dubya’s statement that he’d sign the assault weapons ban if it made it to his desk, aren’t the only ones upset with our usual choice in candidates:

Gun-control advocates say that Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign is divided about how vocal the senator should be in calling for the assault-weapons ban to be renewed.

Kerry’s reluctance to mention the controversial issue on the campaign trail has agitated proponents of the ban, which is scheduled to expire Sept. 13.

Kerry supports the ban, and, earlier this year, he changed his campaign schedule to vote for it to be extended. But some gun-control advocates say he has not done enough.

Asked if Kerry will highlight the issue in his campaign, Blaine Rummel, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said, “There is some shiftiness,” said.

Another gun-control advocate said the campaign is divided on the matter and pointed out that Kerry does not mention gun control measures in his speeches.

If Kerry isn’t gun control enough for you, then I don’t know who would be. However, if Kerry is elected (unlikely in my opinion), expect the push for the ban.

In an update to my post on consent searches, Ravenwood has more:

Shooting of Oshkosh police officer results in knee jerk neighborhood gun grab

Oshkosh, Wis. — Following the shooting of an Oshkosh police officer Saturday night, area residents were forced from their homes, their lawful firearms being confiscated by police.

The Oshkosh Police Department’s Special Weapons and Tactics Unit responded to the area, with a K-9 police dog in pursuit of the perpetrator who was reported to have fled on foot.

Citizens’ guns were seized through searches of area homes. The police promised to return the firearms after forensic tests proved they were not involved in the crime. The injured officer’s name was withheld, but media reports indicate his condition is not life-threatening.

If that happened at my house, I (and some others) would be dead. Ravenwood offers this bit of advice:

This is why all police business should be conducted on the porch. If a policeman wants entry into my home, unless they have a warrant the answer is always “NO”. I don’t know about you, but if you hear that Ravenwood’s guns have been taken, you’ll know Ravenwood is dead.

Indeed.

Update: Jed has more.

You gotta be careful when you cold-call people asking them for money. I just got off the phone with someone raising money for the 21st Century Democrats, an organization that supports “progressive” Democrats. I asked him what positions their candidates would take. He said they wanted to reduce the deficit.

I asked if they were going to cut spending. He said yes. I asked if they were going to cut spending on welfare. He said yes. I asked if they were going to cut spending on the arts. He said yes.

The world’s turned upside down!

He wouldn’t tell me what their position on gun rights was.

The LA Times discusses why some conservatives would view a Bush defeat as good:

First, President Bush hasn’t been as conservative as some would like. Small-government types fume that he has increased discretionary government spending faster than Bill Clinton. Buchananite paleoconservatives, libertarians and Nelson Rockefeller-style internationalists are all furious — for their very different reasons — about Bush’s “war of choice” in Iraq. Even some neocons are irritated by his conduct of that war — particularly his failure to supply enough troops to make the whole enterprise work.

The second reason conservatives might cheer a Bush defeat is to achieve a foreign policy victory. The Bush foreign policy team hardly lacks experience, but its reputation has been tainted — by infighting, by bungling in Iraq and by the rows with Europe. For better or worse, many conservatives may conclude that Kerry, who has accepted most of the main tenets of Bush’s policy of preemption, stands a better chance than Bush of increasing international involvement in Iraq, of winning support for Washington’s general war on terror and even of forcing reform at the United Nations. After all, could Jacques, Gerhard and the rest of those limp-wristed continentals say no to a man who speaks fluent French and German and has just rid the world of the Toxic Texan?

The third reason for the right to celebrate a Bush loss comes in one simple word: gridlock. Gridlock is a godsend to some conservatives — it’s a proven way to stop government spending. A Kerry administration is much more likely to be gridlocked than a second Bush administration because the Republicans look sure to hang on to the House and have a better-than-even chance of keeping control of the Senate.

The fourth reason has to do with regeneration. Some conservatives think the Republican Party — and the wider conservative movement — needs to rediscover its identity. Is it a “small government” party, or does “big government conservatism” make sense? Is it the party of big business or of free markets? Under Bush, Western anti-government conservatives have generally lost ground to Southern social conservatives, and pragmatic internationalists have been outmaneuvered by neoconservative idealists. A period of bloodletting might help, returning a stronger party to the fray.

And that is the fifth reason why a few conservatives might welcome a November Bush-bashing: the certain belief that they will be back, better than ever, in 2008. The conservative movement has an impressive record of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Ford’s demise indeed helped to power the Reagan landslide; “Poppy” Bush’s defeat set up the Gingrich revolution. In four years, many conservatives believe, President Kerry could limp to destruction at the hands of somebody like Colorado Gov. Bill Owens.

Yeah, I’ve said a Bush defeat would be good for us real conservatives. So have Spoons and a few others.

Update: And before someone takes me to task for calling myself a real conservative, I don’t mean in the party-line-toeing sense. I mean in the sense that it refers to application of government (to apply liberally would mean to apply more). I extend my desire for fiscal conservatism to social issues as well. I don’t think the government should throw money at pet projects and silly programs on the tax payer dime. Nor do I think it’s particularly beneficial to over-regulate social issues.

Actually, some in the past have accused me of being a liberal from 40 years ago.

But stupid enough to send some angry correspondence.

An article about the assault weapons ban, that focuses on how the local police officials disagree about it, is factually correct in describing the ban as a ban on assault rifles with certain attachments. Further, it says:

The 1994 Assault Weapons Act made semiautomatic assault weapons illegal if they had detachable magazines and two or more of the following: a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or a grenade launcher. Such features often are applied to guns such as the AK-47 and AR-15. The act is set to expire in mid-September.

Good for the Herald-Mail.

Just caught Michael Moore on TV blathering about how evil everyone but Democrats are. I really wonder if he’s a mole placed by the GOP to get people to think Democrats are all moonbats. His speech was about one part righteous criticism of the press and the establishment and three parts moonbat, coo coo for CoCo puffs. His rantings are good at riling the party faithful but those middle of the road folks (you know, the one’s whose votes people need to get elected?) will likely be unimpressed.

Update: Oh yeah, he said that polls prove that most Americans are liberal (he used the codespeak term progressive), favoring gun control (no code speak here), women’s rights (code speak for abortion), and pro-labor (codespeak for liking unions). I’d like to see some of these polls. If people really are these things, why the codespeak?

Oh, and he said Republicans get up at six in the morning and decide which minority they’re going to screw that day. That goes over well with moderates.

Tom Humphrey, who we now see why he’s not blogging, writes in the KNS:

Al Gore said Tuesday that President Bush’s “saturation television advertising” in East Tennessee indicates Republicans fear that John Kerry can win the state he lost in 2000.

Speaking to Tennessee delegates a day after addressing the Democratic National Convention, Gore contended that the GOP fears were justified though most polls show Bush with a solid lead in his home state.

Sorry Al, you’re dreaming. Tennessee was Gore’s to lose and he did. Tennessee, however, is also Bush’s to lose but Kerry isn’t the guy that’s gonna do it for us genteel Southerners.

Apparently, new citizens in Florida are presumed to be Republican:

Dario Cruz has lived in the United States for 16 years, but just became a citizen last week as he and about 200 other immigrants were naturalized.

One of the things he had always wanted to was register to vote, but when he was offered the chance to do that right outside the ceremony, he knew something wasn’t right — the place on the form where you’re asked to choose Democrat, Republican or independent was already filled out.

“It’s like one side,” Cruz said. “You don’t get to choose.”

According to Cruz and his family, every form was checked off Republican.

I thought he KNS DemCon blog would be a good thing but one entry per day? I do that in my sleep. Seriously, I’m asleep now.

I have been remiss in plugging Hot Chicks from Yahoo News (best used through an RSS feed). The content may not be for everyone but the concept is cool. It counts words and determines which news stories are likely to have a picture of a babe. Most of the time, it’s right on. Other times, not so much.

Well, there go my plans for making a T-shirt that says I’m carrying a gun.

A retailer of scope mounts and other gun accessories called Mounting Solutions has linked to SayUncle. To my knowledge, that’s the first time a manufacturer of firearm related products has linked to me.

And, heck, they get some free advertising out of the deal with this post.

And I’ll be needing one of these soon, since once the ban expires I’ll be building an M4 with a flattop upper, as seen here.

My ass:

[John Kerry] was in Wisconsin the other day, pretending to be a regular guy, and was asked what kind of hunting he preferred. “I’d have to say deer,” said the senator. “I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach… That’s hunting.”

So, what’s wrong with that quote?

Update: Kynn sets us straight in comments. Kerry was apparently Dowdified as the full quote is:

After his successful round of trapshooting Saturday (Kerry hit 17 of 25 targets), Kerry told a reporter he would rather have been hunting.

He was asked in the interview Sunday what kind of hunting he preferred.

“Probably I’d have to say deer. It’s tough, depending on where you are,” said Kerry.

“I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach. I track and move and decoy and play games and try to outsmart them. You know, you kind of play the wind. That’s hunting,” said Kerry, whose manner was relaxed as he spoke on the final day of an excursion along the scenic upper Mississippi that he seemed to take some relish in.

As Kynn says:

There’s nothing in the original version to indicate that Kerry’s quotes were said in direct succession (nothing to say they weren’t either), but he clearly didn’t make the statements as portrayed in the edited version, which appears to flow cleanly between “hunting deer” and “crawling on the ground.”

In particular, the phrase It’s tough, depending on where you are can be seen as Kerry saying, “It’s difficult to find a place where you can hunt deer, because they’re not always around” – so likely he means that he hunts other things.

His reference to “that’s hunting” has to be read in light of the fact that he’d just been trapshooting. He wasn’t saying “hunting deer with a shotgun on my belly, that’s hunting” – he was saying “going out and stalking prey instead of blasting clay pigeons, THAT’S hunting.”

I concur.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (which is almost as dumb a name as Post Intelligencer) writes:

More than 7,000 people who should have been barred from buying guns were able to buy them anyway in 2002 and 2003, according to a Justice Department review released Monday.

The government rarely prosecutes such cases, the report said.

Federal law stipulates that gun buyers might have to wait up to three business days before receiving their weapons; under a system of instant FBI background checks instituted in 1998, most sales are approved much quicker. Of the 17 million gun purchases in the past two years, 122,000 were denied because of the checks.

If the background check isn’t completed within the period, however, the law says the purchase must go through. In 2002 and 2003, there were a combined 7,030 “delayed denial” cases in which the FBI found that a prohibited person was able to get a gun after the period expired, according to the review by Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s inspector general.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives retrieved the weapon in 97 percent of those cases. But that sometimes took a year or longer.

The study did not say how many times a crime was committed with the gun before it was retrieved but provided some examples, including an instance in which a prohibited buyer was charged with aggravated assault after firing the illegally purchased weapon at another person’s car.

Several reasons were cited by the bureau for its failure to retrieve the guns more quickly, including staff shortages, technology problems and lack of adequate timeliness standards. The review also found that agents did not consider it a priority to track down the illegal gun purchasers because they are not viewed as dangerous. “We were also told that ‘bad guys’ generally do not purchase their firearms through legitimate dealers,” the review said.

The study also found that federal prosecutors brought charges in only 154 of the 122,000 illegal purchase cases.

I suppose the three-day rule is to rule out denial of a legal purchase by simply not doing the check. Seems the better solution is to mandate the check be done in three days.

Only 154 charges in 122,000 cases? Maybe if the ATF was more willing to enforce existing gun laws, the calls for more gun laws might not be necessary.

The Geek shows us the free speech zones at DemCon.

Ravenwood has more.

I’m sure all those lefty bloggers who were bashing Bush’s free speech zones will come out and decry these horrendous acts? Bueller?

Update: Good for SKB on calling it outrageous.

The Comedian, a site you should be reading, landed an interview with comedian Jim Norton. Read it here.

I’d have one guy whose job it as to make sure I didn’t do anything that, you know, made me look really stupid.

The Knoxville News Sentinel’s Tom Humphrey is blogging the Democratic National Convention. Good for the KNS.

There’s a lot of good AWB stuff today. Bill O’Reilly gets the assault weapons ban wrong, according to Vox Day:

Mr. O’Reilly once attacked the president of the Gun Owners of America as a nutcase on the fringe due to the GOA’s opposition to the assault weapons ban. This demonstrated three things:

1 “The Factor” does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, which is to ensure that the people are able to militarily resist their government. Of all people, a New England man should know that Lexington and Concord were fought by those resisting the attempt of the then-legitimate government to confiscate private weapon stores.

2 “The Factor” does not understand the Assault Weapons Ban, which does not concern itself with bazookas and machine guns, but pistol grips and magazine clips.

3 “The Factor” has no intention of allowing open debate on his program. It’s his program, so that’s his right, but it puts the lie to his “No-Spin” claim. Mr. O’Reilly is every bit the agitprop artist that Michael Moore is, the primary difference being that Moore lies and seeks the destruction of his targets in order to destroy them, while O’Reilly lies and seeks the destruction of his targets in order to sell himself.

And party foul to Mr. Day for using the phrase magazine clip.

It turns out that the police do not overwhelmingly support the ban, at least among the rank and file. The Law Enforcement Alliance of America writes:

Long guns of any type are used in only a tiny fraction of gun crimes (the preferred firearm for criminals is, naturally, more concealable pistols). And despite the impression you may get from movies and TV, the criminal use of rifles classified as so-called “assault weapons” is even rarer. Indeed, those firearms classified by the legislation as “assault rifles” are the least likely firearms to be used in crime.

In effect, the 1994 law bans 19 types of semi-automatic rifles and pistols because they have two or more “scary looking” features –like a bayonet lug, pistol grip or flash suppressor. Note that none of these features actually contribute to criminal use of the firearm. And, there is a prohibition on newly manufactured ammunition magazines capable of containing more than 10 rounds, for rifles or handguns.

Surely there must have been some reduction in crime as a result of this sweeping ban? Actually, no.

The U.S. Department of Justice conducted two studies of the consequences of the 1994 ban. Nearly five years after passage, in 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice, still under Clinton’s control, looked exhaustively at the ban’s effects. It concluded that “the public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.” In 2001, a second Justice Department review similarly found no evidence that the ban had a statistically significant effect on violent crime. Finally, a congressionally mandated study by the liberal Urban Institute reached comparable conclusions.

This article states that police are largely underwhelmed and will view the sunset of the ban as just another day:

Big shots in the national gun-control debate may party or hang out black crepe paper Sept. 13, when a 10-year ban on assault weapons is expected to end.

Area law enforcement officials expect it to be just another day on the streets.

“I think it makes most police officers uncomfortable knowing the amount of fire power that is out there and available to the percentage of the population that would use it for evil purposes,” said David Lain, chief deputy of the Porter County’s Sherrif’s Department.(sic)

“But I don’t see that, ban or no ban, that it’s going to affect what weapons the bad guys are able to get ahold of.” (sic)

Indeed.

On the political front, Clinton, in his book, apparently blamed the 1994 ban to the Republican congressional sweep that happened two months later:

One issue that Democrats are not highlighting on a national level is gun control. In his new book, Clinton writes that the passage of the assault-weapons ban helped Republicans take control of Congress 10 years ago.

Sen. John Kerry, who supports extending the ban that expires Sept. 13, has stressed that he is an avid hunter. He interrupted his campaign schedule earlier this year to vote for the extension of the assault-weapons ban.

However, he does not list gun control as a major issue on his campaign website and has attempted to make a clear distinction between his views on guns and those of 2000 Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore.

If you haven’t heard, Carolyn McCarthy will be giving a speech about the ban at the Democrat National Convention. The ban is definitely the party line at this point. If the ban sunsets, I’ll have to reconsider my support for Bush because if Bush loses, the Democrats will push for it.

However, this article states that Democrats are divided on the issue:

The issue is complicated for Democrats because some party leaders, including Louisiana Senate candidate Chris John, now a U.S. House member from Crowley, strongly support the National Rifle Association position against gun control, which is that aggressively prosecuting lawbreakers is more effective than any gun legislation.

Those who helped write the Democratic platform apparently didn’t want to place a major emphasis on the gun-control issue, devoting just a single paragraph to the topic.

“We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do,” the platform reads.

Protecting my rights by infringing on them? I think you misunderstand the concept. The article also details the struggle in the party about, though most Democrats support the ban, they don’t want to push it because it will cost them votes. So, if it’s not an election year, expect a push for it if the Dems gain power.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has a fact sheet on semi-automatic firearms.

What did one America say to the other?

Shove it!

Feces Flinging Monkey knows who’s going to win the Presidential election:

I looked up how many electoral votes are at stake in each of these states, and did the math. I then considered various ways of interpreting the data, and kept coming back to the same conclusion – Florida. Whoever wins Florida wins the game.

That just warms the cockles of my little heart, it does.

Bet you didn’t know that. The Commissar has the scoop on AK theft and wonders why American forces are buying them when they’re so readily available.

An editorial (this one signed) that calls out other editorials for their misrepresentations regarding the assault weapons ban:

Newspaper editorial pages have lately become a choir in support of renewing the ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The authors of those emotional appeals should research the issue a bit more, so they can at least get their stories straight.

Take, for example, an editorial in the South Bend (Ind.) Tribune that stated, “In 1993, prior to the ban, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crime. After the ban had been in effect for three years, the proportion had dropped to 3.2 percent.”

Two days later, the New York Daily News editorialized, “Before the federal ban, assault weapons were used in almost 5 percent of crimes. After the ban, that number dropped to 1.6 percent.”

Well, which is it? Statistical surveys compiled by David Kopel with the Independence Institute, a Colorado-based think tank, revealed the following:

In 1990 in California — four years before the ban — only 58 of the 1,979 guns seized from drug dealers were classified as “assault weapons.” Between 1985 and 1989 in Chicago, only one murder was committed with a rifle firing a military-caliber cartridge, and in 1989 Chicago police seized 17,144 guns, only 175 of which were “military-style weapons.” Also in 1989, New Jersey authorities reported no homicide involving a rifle of any kind. Incidentally, in Chicago, according to FBI data, the chance of being stabbed or beaten to death is 67 times greater than being murdered with a so-called “assault rifle.”

Kudos to Dave Workman, a writer for Gun Week, and the AJC for printing it.

I show up at your door, armed to the teeth. Then I say I’d like to search your home. What do you do? Odds are, you let me in. But is that really a consent search? Per this:

Police last week seized a number of firearms during consent searches of homes in the area, but need the bullet to match against them. Police also served a search warrant at the property they believe the shot originated from.

When Pete isn’t busy telling us about the ridiculousness of the war on civil liberties err drugs, he’s apparently busy being a photographer. Here’s some of his stuff.

Some gun porn courtesy of the Violence Policy Center.

Environmentalists will be happy to see lead free ammunition. I read an article on how much the manufacturers of this stuff had to go through to get approval from the BATF to market this stuff. There were concerns that may have been armor piercing, whatever that means.

Congress is out of session until September 7. After, they will have six days for both houses to pass the assault weapons ban. They will also have to get Bush to sign it. Things are looking up for the good guys.

Of course, my fear is that it will sunset only to come back in a few months/years and be more restrictive. As a public service, when the ban sunsets, I will buy about ten of these.

Congrats to Cox and Forkum on their first newspaper gig. Here’s to many more!

KITT from the TV show Knight Rider is up for bid on ebay. Cool.

someone tells me that cops are better trained in the handling of firearms, I will be sure to send them here. That is not proper firearm safety.

At five weeks old, my little girl outgrew her first outfit today. I was trying to put her in a gown and was about to break out the shoehorn when the Mrs. says She may have outgrown that. Then she checks the tag, which says up to eight pounds. My daughter now weighs almost nine.

Funny story: A few nights ago, she starts crying for her 3 in the morning feeding. I get up, grab her and notice she’s had an accident that soaked through her clothes. I then take off her clothes and diaper, pick out a new little gown, and dress her back up. I get her bottle ready and start feeding her. A few minutes later, I feel warm. Then I notice I’m wet. She peed on me. I started cussing the diapers under my breath. By the way, one thing you learn as a parent is that urine is sterile. I go get some more clothes and another diaper. I remove her clothes and realize that in my 3 in the morning stupor I forgot to put a diaper on her. Just a gown. It could have been much worse.

I miss sleep.

True or False: Sushi is raw fish.
Read the rest of this entry »

The AP:

The extraordinary secrecy imposed by judges in the cases of Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant and Martha Stewart has some media experts and scholars warning that America is developing a two-tiered justice system — one for celebrities and one for everyone else.

Actually, it’s simpler than that: there’s one system for wealthy folks and one for everyone else.

Cool site of the day!

Headache causing site of the day!

The conventions are coming. There will be a lot of talk at these conventions about freedom and rights and what makes America great. Kind of ironic that they’ll be doing this while declaring what is basically martial law* (complete with many armed guards, armed vehicles and free speech zones) in these two cities.

* I mean martial law in the figurative sense, of course.

A letter written to congress from the NRA Director says:

To respond generally to the claims, please let me stress several provisions of federal law that these four Members apparently overlooked:

Firearm dealers are prohibited from selling a rifle or shotgun to a person under age 18.

Firearm dealers are prohibited from selling a handgun to anyone under age 21.

It is unlawful to mail or ship any firearm to someone who is not a federal firearm licensee (manufacturer, dealer, etc.).

The Gun Free School Zones Act prohibits possession of a firearm on school grounds.

AK-47s and similar foreign-made firearms are prohibited under firearm importation law and administrative rules, which will not be affected by the expiration of the Clinton gun ban.

Two other guns, among the “19″ guns the letters claim will be legal again (both very rare revolving cylinder shotguns) are separately prohibited under the National Firearms Act, which will not be affected by the ban’s expiration.

Also, the maker of the Tec-9 is apparently out of business. There’s more, read the whole thing.

Two boys aged 10 and 14 are accused of torturing five kittens and cutting a dog with box cutters.

President Bush signed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act into law. The law exempts active and retired police officers from local prohibitions regarding carrying firearms. Qualified policemen can carry weapons nationwide.

That’s a good thing, don’t get me wrong. However, I’d like to see national concealed carry for everyone.

Our bloated government failed us says the 9/11 Commission. The solution to the failure of big, complex, bureaucratic government is to make it bigger, more complex and more bureaucratic:

Among its recommendations, many of which already had become public, the commission recommended creating a new intelligence center and high-level intelligence director. An intelligence-gathering center would bring a unified command to the more than dozen agencies that now collect and analyze intelligence.

Running the center would be a new national intelligence director, reporting directly to the president at just below full Cabinet rank, with control over intelligence budgets and the ability to hire and fire deputies, including the CIA director and top intelligence officials at the FBI, Homeland Security Department and Defense Department.

Yet, the commission concludes, the biggest failing was one of imagination. You can’t legislate imagination. Other recommendations include:

…improved immigration screening to keep terrorists out of the country and a more focused foreign policy approach to reach out to moderate Muslims around the world.

The improved screening is a good idea. Reaching out to Muslims is one of those touchy-feely things that will never affect the desire of the radical few Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. The results of this commission, though they may make some people feel better, will do little to make us safer if implemented.

Note that it didn’t recommend taking fucking tweezers from people.

Michelle Malkin, who blogs here, addresses how soccer moms are becoming security moms. And she has shirts!

Gun links are up!

Here’s a pretty good article on the doom and gloom rhetoric of the assault weapons ban:

There is one major flaw with the ban. It’s one that the critics bring up at some peril to law-abiding gun owners. It’s this: In mechanics and function, some of the banned weapons are not appreciably different than an array of rifles and shotguns that remain perfectly legal to manufacture. Generally speaking, the banned weapons look different than sporting arms. But functionally, they’re the same.

That’s one reason why Sept. 14 will not dawn with the staccato sounds of automatic fire. The assault weapon ban ended the manufacture and retail sale of certain weapons, but hardly dented the firepower at Americans’ disposal.

Governor Huckabee has criticized Kerry and Edwards on guns and rights:

Speaking at a gun club shooting range run by the Remington Arms company, Huckabee criticized Kerry’s comments that the Second Amendment right to bear arms should stop with state militia and should not extend to individuals. The governor also cautioned Southerners not to be fooled by North Carolina Senator John Edwards as Kerry’s running mate. The governor says Edwards will try to portray himself as a fellow Southerner when he does not hunt, fish, like NASCAR racing or country music.

Emphasis added. There’s your sportsmen candidate for you. I don’t hunt or fit any of those Southerner things but I understand gun rights.

Late start today, been busy but Michael has the latest VTP up.

Blake has an update and request for help regarding Mark Lancaster.

Chris emailed this link that instructs people how to win the debate in favor of extending the assault weapons ban. It does so poorly:

An overwhelming majority of Americans support the ban.

Since, as is often reported here, the ban is misrepresented as banning machine guns, I’d say that is not really the case. After all, other pollsters have been accused of asking loaded questions, such as do you support a ban on AK47s and Uzis to imply machine guns. And the majority of Americans supported slavery and segregation too. Don’t make it right.

The prohibited guns are designed specifically for killing people. The law mentions 19 semiautomatic weapons by name, none of which can be construed to have any sporting purpose. As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has written, “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.”

These guns are used in sporting competitions at Camp Perry and they serve other recreational purposes. Actual assault weapons (you know, machine guns) are designed for rapid fire. The banned weapons have the same rate of fire as a semi-automatic hunting rifle. The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to arms for sporting purposes or hunting, just the right to arms. And if you quote the Brady Campaign, you have already lost the debate.

The ban has been effective. Since the implementation of the law in 1994, ATF found that the proportion of gun crime traced to the banned weapons has fallen by two-thirds. The Department of Justice study mandated by the law controlled for other variables related to the drop in violent crime and concluded that murder rates dropped nearly 7% below what they were projected to be without the ban

Before the ban, these weapons were used in roughly 0.25% of crimes (link – see page 2). Two-thirds of an insignificant number remains insignificant. The drop in murder rate also coincided with a better economy and the increase in the number of states that issue concealed carry laws. Correlation does not equal causation. And since the guns were used in so few crimes to begin with, it likely had no effect. Even the Centers for Disease Control said that gun bans have not been shown to have an impact on crime.

Assault weapons are lethal tools for crime. They have been used in some of the most horrible crimes in recent history, including the Branch-Davidian standoff at Waco and the Stockton schoolyard massacre. Prohibiting these guns does not infringe on hunting rights or rights to self-defense—it only prevents criminals from accessing the best equipment for committing mass murder. The gun lobby’s refusal to conform to the obvious social consensus that banning tools for slaughter is a good idea shows that it places narrow special interests completely above the safety of the American people.

The Branch Davidians used machine guns in addition to assault rifles. Semi-auto versions of AK47s, as used in the Stockton massacre, are still available. They just aren’t available with more than one of a flash hider, bayonet lug, grenade launcher, pistol grip, or threaded barrel. Again, there is no right to hunt guaranteed in the Constitution and I think some Korean shop owners in Los Angeles in 1992 would disagree about them not being useful for self-defense. Lastly, the favored weapon of criminals is a cheap handgun. Assault weapons are typically expensive and are not favored by criminals, as they are only used in less than one percent of crimes before and after the ban.

SayUncle is now the number one Google for “Synonyms for fart”.

Read the whole thing.

WATE reports:

Authorities say a sports utility vehicle exploded and killed a man in a parking lot at Nashville’s largest hotel.

ATF agents say the explosion in the Range Rover happened just before midnight in a lot about a half-mile from the main entrance of Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center.

ATF agent Jim Cavanaugh said the cause of the blast hasn’t been determined. But he says investigators suspect it was a homemade bomb.

Investigators from the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force and the FBI are also at the scene of the popular resort.

Police said the powerful explosion was felt miles away. It left nothing but a shell of the SUV that was found about 200 feet from a day care center.

It will be curious to see how this pans out.

It seems that Kerry and Edwards are ranked as more liberal than Mondale and Ferraro.

This just in: SayUncle shocked to learn that Sandy Berger may be a dude.

Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin T. Keith over at Lean Left writes:

Gun-rights Web sites are crowing that the GOP is actively working to prevent any extension of the assault weapons ban – currently set to expire – from coming to a vote, even though Bush has pledged his support for the ban. The reason: Bush’s promise was a lie, and they are trying to protect him from being caught between the gun lobby and his own pledge.

The utter stupidity of the assault weapons ban aside, the politics of this thing are going to come into play and it will cost Bush votes and endorsement by the NRA if he signs the bill. The NRA is currently not endorsing Bush due to his support of the ban. They are, however, slamming Kerry constantly. My prediction is that if the ban sunsets, the NRA will endorse Bush.

Kevin continues with:

[the] above comes from a Libertarian candidate who insists that “both of the major parties are, in fact, the same” and that “the NRA is not a gun rights organization, but merely a fund raising operation for those who blindly follow GOP dictates.” Yep – there’s somebody who thinks that both the Republican party and the NRA are too liberal on gun issues! Super-right-wing whackiness aside, we need to support Senator Feinstein in her drive to attach the ban extension as a rider on current legislation.

The Libertarian candidates are incorrect. There is a difference between Bush and Kerry. Bush signed concealed carry into law in Texas and his Justice Department reversed 40 years of policy by recognizing the individual right to arms. Bush also has not actively pursued the AWB. Kerry, who never misses an opportunity to pose with a gun, would never endorse concealed carry and would actively pursue the AWB. In fact, the AWB was one of those rare bills he and Edwards decided to show up to vote for. Kerry has never seen a gun control law he hasn’t liked.

On the NRA, the Libertarians are sort of correct. There has not been a federal gun control law passed since 1934 that did not have the NRA’s blessing or that they weren’t willing to let slide to get another bill. The NRA endorsed the Gun Control Acts of 1968 and 1986. The NRA could have stopped (as the bill could have been filibustered) the 1994 assault weapons ban but chose not to because the NRA wanted the national instant background check system more to get rid of waiting periods. Not bad for an extremist gun lobby.

I am not nor have I ever been a member of the NRA. I have stated that if the ban sunsets, I will join.

Recently, when the gun manufacturer immunity bill was up for debate on the Senate floor, it was (and still is) widely believed that the NRA was willing to sell gun owners out by allowing the ban to pass in exchange for the immunity bill. The NRA, historically, has gone to great lengths to protect manufacturers (see 1968 and 1986 GCAs). They were, rumor has it, inundated with phone calls and other correspondence telling them that the ban was unacceptable and changed their minds about letting it through.

On the ban itself, there are only four reasons to support the ban:

1 – You incorrectly believe that it does actually ban AK47s, Uzis and machine guns. This is likely the case for most folks because it’s what the press constantly tells you. The ban does not.

2 – You are for gun control and think the ban is a symbolic precursor to the confiscation and/or outright ban of arms in the US, which it is. After all, even Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center has stated the ban is ineffective at accomplishing any thing.

3 – You’re an idiot

4 – To play politics and call Bush out on his pledge to sign the bill into law which will surely cost him votes.

I know Kevin’s not an idiot. I think his reason is either number 2 or number 4.

Maybe it’s because the ban doesn’t actually ban any guns but rather bans features:

More than 40 gunmakers in 22 states are currently marketing “post-ban” assault weapons—including UZIs, AK-47s, AR-15s, MAC-10s, Galils, MP5s, Tommy Guns, Stens, and others—according to United States of Assault Weapons: Gunmakers Evading the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, a new study released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC), a Washington, DC-based national research and educational organization. The study also estimates that more than one million “post-ban” assault weapons have been manufactured in the United States since the ban’s passage in 1994 and warns that today “there are more assault weapon manufacturers and assault weapons available for sale than ever before.” The study proves that if the 1994 ban is simply renewed, and not strengthened, every single one of the assault weapons made by these companies and featured in the study will remain on the market, legal for sale to the American public under federal law.

Good.

They really do warm the cockles of my heart. Rick DeMent writes:

I have a strict rule, never mess with anything dangerous if you don’t know anything about it. This is why I don’t own a gun (it’s also why I don’t have a pet cobra). It’s not that I don’t like guns or that I fear guns, in the hands of someone trained in their use, who does not have evil intentions, they are a useful tool. But guns and politics don’t mix, unless you leading the revolution.

Which is why I have always thought the Assault Weapons ban is pretty stupid. Even my limited knowledge of firearms informs me that there are guns far more powerful available to anyone who whishes to own one then those banned under the AWB. Say Uncle is doing a check of left leaning types that think that the AWB is bad policy and I just thought I would count myself among them. (sic)

There’s more worth reading. Additionally, Rick’s co-blogger Dietz Smith writes in the same post:

Just wanted to let Uncle know that I have been very pro-gun as long as I can remember. I’m not completely convinced the Second Amendment grants all citizens the right to bear arms without restrictions and what’s more I don’t care. This is a right we have, as a nation, appropriated for our selves and as such would be foolish to give up.

Not all citizens, just those that aren’t criminals, insane, etc. And I don’t oppose all restrictions either. I oppose infringements. I don’t, for example, oppose registration. I oppose it to the extent it can be used as a means of confiscation. And I don’t oppose background checks. I also don’t oppose requiring licenses for concealed carry since said licenses are issued typically after competence with a gun is demonstrated.

I do oppose bans. I do oppose portions the 1934 National Firearms Act (taxing a right is illegal); the Hughes Amendment (limiting machine gun purchases to those made prior to 1986 is an infringement); and the Assault Weapons Ban (it bans arbitrary features). And I think every state should have shall-issue concealed carry permits.

No, not me. Michael Silence informs me that Tom Humphrey of the Knoxville News Sentinel will be blogging both conventions. Keep an eye out at their site for the coverage.

Mild-mannered SayUncle is actually a CPA by day. However, this stuff bores even me. Hence, accounting blogging is rare.

It is good to see the bill requiring stock options to be expensed getting blocked:

The House voted Tuesday to block a rule that would require companies to count stock options against their profits, after a party-splitting debate over corporate accountability, economic growth and jobs.

The vote was 312-111 for a bill overriding a proposal by the rule-setting board for accounting. The board wanted to force publicly traded companies to record as an expense all forms of share-based payments to employees, including stock options.

(snip)

The rule change proposed in March by the Financial Accounting Standards Board could dramatically reduce the reported earnings of many big companies, particularly in the high-tech industry where stock options have been popular.

Equity is always equity. Such a change would have a dramatic impact on profits for companies and would artificially decrease earnings. The result on the markets would probably be bad as collectively companies would be doing worse on paper. This is up for consideration due to corporate abuses (*cough* Enron *cough*).

It is not surprising to me that the Big Four accounting firms support it. After all, it gives them more work to do.

When I was in high school, there was this asshole. He was a major league asshole too. He’d pick fights with the retarded kids from special education, after making fun of them. He wanted his car painted so he intentionally rammed a grocery store shopping cart into his car figuring the grocery store would be liable for damages and pay for it (he was wrong, witnesses saw him do it). He’d intimidate kids and try to take their stuff. The list goes on. He also wasn’t particularly bright.

Then one day, he died. He died a particularly horrendous death. After drinking a bit too much, he ran off the road into a ditch that was slightly wider than his car. His car caught fire and he couldn’t open the doors because the walls of the ditch prevented him from doing so. Truly a horrible way to die and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

As you may have guessed, this asshole became the saint of the school. The school gave everyone a day off to go to the services (I didn’t go). Memorials left and right, mention in the school newspaper, special graduation memorial, the high school founded a chapter of SADD in his name, etc., etc.

All this for an asshole. What changed? Now, he was a dead asshole.

I guess when people pass on, we become forgiving. Or forgetful.

I bring this up because I was going to do a post on a professor I once had. This professor was an ideologue. For example, he had the class watch a movie on abortion that was blatantly biased toward the pro-choice side. People left in the middle of it (it was particularly offensive to any pro-lifers who may have been there) and reported him to the department head.

He also told us that when we turned in a paper, we couldn’t use the words he or she. We had to use the non-sexist word ne. I forgot the rule for his and her. Obviously, ne wasn’t an English teacher. I had written a paper and turned it in and I, while referring to a specific person who was matter-of-factly female, used the word she and her quite often. Ne tried to ding me some points for doing so but I sought out the department head and created a stink about how teachers shouldn’t allow their preferences to affect proper English.

Now, ne wasn’t an asshole. He add various little socio-political idiosyncrasies that were annoying. Ne was ideologically obtuse. Ne allowed his ideology to consume his professional life and ne wanted to exert his influence on his students and mandate they be exposed to his worldview and that they comply.

To his benefit, ne encouraged me to think by pissing me off.

I Googled up his name today to see what happened to him. Ne died of a massive heart attack at the age of 44 two years ago. Bummer.

Via Rodger:

“I’m not a vegetarian because I love animals. I’m a vegetarian because I hate plants.” – A. Whitney Brown

I am remiss in mentioning that the epic battle of good vs. evil that was being played out over at Classless Warfare is no more. Jay has moved here and Jane has moved here.

Local satire site Knoxpatch is looking for writers. Of course, it could be a joke. I’m just saying, you know.

Update: Just noticed I didn’t have a permanent link to Knoxpatch on here. Problem corrected. Of course I had to lump them in the sites without feeds category. Tsk, tsk!

It’s not a big deal, but this story on the nacho-cheese covered naked man refers to my town of residence as Marysville. The name of the town is Maryville and it’s pronounced Murvul.

Via Ravenwood.

A few lefty bloggers are stating that the Assault Weapons Ban hysteria is just rhetoric. Good for them. Yglesias tells us that the ban is basically pointless. Mark A. R. Kleiman concurs, in part.

I think more important is that Yglesias writes that the ban is a political loser:

Last but by no means least, gun control is bad politics and, at best, middling policy. The nation’s crime problem should not be dismissed lightly, but compared to other problems we face, it simply isn’t that big a deal. If you had to trade making zero progress on crime control in exchange for making progress on health care and education, you’d be crazy not to take the deal. And what’s more, there are lots of ways to make progress on crime control (the easiest step would be better drug treatment and supervision of parolees) that have nothing to do with gun regulation. The Post’s use of the term “weapons of destruction” to describe the prohibited firearms, meanwhile, is a piece of silly rhetoric worthy of the Bush administration and not of a great newspaper; one that directly recalls the president’s newfound concern about Saddam’s “weapons of mass murder.” In Rwanda they killed an awful lot of people with farm implements; that such things can “destroy” and wreak “mass murder” is neither here nor there from the point of view of designing a regulatory regime.

It’s good to see some on the left not cater to the hysteria. Some on the left get a part of it correct but it’s not a passionate issue for them. Now, if more liberals would arm themselves, we’d be on to something.

The Knoxville Libertarian tells me that UT professors make more than I would have figured.

The Democrat Party has released its 2004 platform. It says, in part, that:

We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime,

Great so far, where do I sign up?

reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

So, they plan on protecting our Second Amendment rights by infringing on our right to own guns? And, of course, they have a desire to close a non-existent loophole. Transactions at gun shows undergo the same procedures for dealers as they do at a gun shop.

A Tennessee man has filed suit claiming the $1M tax on hope payout wasn’t random:

Dennis Perry, a 57-year-old disabled veteran from Fayetteville, won $10,000 on June 26 during a drawing for the largest prize awarded since the Tennessee Lottery began in January. He was one of three finalists for the $1 million grand prize.

In a lawsuit filed in Lincoln County, Perry is seeking as damages the remaining $990,000 he did not win.

Perry’s attorney, Raymond Fraley, of Fayetteville, said that proving damages would be difficult. But he said mistakes made during the televised drawing kept it from being random, making the results invalid.

Perry “didn’t get to pick an envelope because it was done for him,” Fraley said. “And that goof-up involved something as important as who wins $1 million.”

Drawing rules provided that the three finalists select an envelope that would award them $10,000 or send them to the next round for possible prizes of $25,000 or $1 million. The envelopes were attached to a wheel that was spun to mix them up.

Bridget Magers-Elliott of Stantonville spun the wheel, and announcer John Dwyer of WKRN-TV in Nashville instructed her to take the envelope that was closest to where a pointer on the wheel landed.

Dwyer then told the third contestant, Mark Silor of Knoxville — who won the $1 million — to take the envelope next to that one. Perry had to take the remaining envelope.

If I understand this article correctly, they’re telling us how to get some porn:

Management at a local Cadillac dealership acted quickly to correct their web site Monday when they learned that Internet searches brought visitors to a porn site from Poland.

When 6 News went to the Knoxville News-Sentinel’s link for knoxcars.com on Monday morning, the first listing was for Airport Cadillac. But the web site had been stolen.

The dealership didn’t know their domain name airportcadillac.com had expired or had been hijacked by a porn site.

“I feel like my privacy has been invaded quite a bit on it,” said Airport Cadillac’s General Manager Marc Zlotogura.

Actually, your privacy hasn’t been invaded at all. However, your stupidity or laziness has gotten the better of you.

I wonder how many hits the site got due to this news report?

Regarding the assault weapons ban:

“If the ban is lifted, people will be able to purchase fully automatic weapons, and they will be able to use those automatic weapons,” he said. “It could jeopardize the lives of the public or police officers or others.”

The ban, of course, doesn’t affect fully automatic weapons.

Then, there’s this:

Bans on assault weapons may be well-intended, but they’re ultimately pointless.

“I didn’t do my homework on that vote,” Platts now admits. A little homework, he says, would have shown that the difference between an “assault weapon” and a hunting or target-shooting weapon is largely semantic. Put a certain fold-up stock or other feature on a legal rifle, and it becomes an “assault weapon.” They’re not “machine guns.”

Amazing. It’s like they’re talking about two different things.

Is it odd that the song Welcome to this World by Primus calms my daughter when she’s fussy? Thought so.

1 – If you ever want a good reminder of why you went to college, spend a couple of hours digging post holes.

2 – I watched the TV news today and had two stories that affirm my reasons for not watching TV news. The first story was of a tragedy where a child on a field trip slipped and fell into some rough water and drowned. The solution to prevent this was field trip checklists. Huh? Number two involved the guy that slipped and fell on another worker. As a result of the fall, the other worker accidentally shot six nails from a nail gun into the guy’s head. TV news then pointed out that nail guns hold sixty nails, shot them as fast as you pulled the trigger (a distinction not usually made for semi-automatic guns that shoot bullets), and that these guns didn’t have safeties. Again, huh? How would a safety have stopped that?

Tomorrow we’re having our party primary elections, and some non-partisan judicial elections. I’ve had the local Evil Talk Radio station on in the background, and I’ve noticed a lot of ads for Republican candidates. I wasn’t listening too closely to one of them, until I heard it disparage one candidate for being affiliated with the Libertarian Party:

“You know, the party that wants to legalize all drugs, opposes the gay-marriage amendment, and opposes President Bush in Iraq.”

Those fiends!

The top- and bottom-of-the-hour news has also mentioned that you’re only supposed to vote for candidates of one party tomorrow. Unaffiliated voters can choose Republican or Democrat, but registered Libertarians can only vote in the non-partisan contests.

UPDATE: That quote isn’t really a quote; it’s kind of what I remember them saying. I think I remembered part of it wrong; I fixed it. My bad.

One word: Yum!

1/4 cup bourbon
1/4 cup Dijon mustard
3 table spoons ground mustard
1 table spoon garlic
1/4 cup of honey
1/4 cup soy sauce

Whisk ingredients together and marinate 2 to 4 steaks in it for several hours. Grill and eat.

I told you that DeLay said that the Assault Weapons Ban will not be called up for a vote. Howard M. Metzenbaum
says:

There you have it. The president says he supports the assault weapons ban but refuses to lift a finger for it. And the powerful House majority leader — who does not support the ban — is pretending that all it would take to pass it is a word from the president.

Other reports say DeLay has affirmed that he would bring it up for a vote if Bush asked. But AWBSunset says it’s not so:

Tom DeLay never said, nor implied that the ban would pass in the House if President Bush made this “magic” phone call. In fact, you are omitting a significant fact, part of the DeLay quote you are distorting… “The House leaders have always been clear: The votes are not there in the House to extend the ban.”

Good for DeLay.

Jeff has the latest.

Gun hysteria defined:

On Sept. 16, 1991, George Hennard drove his pickup truck through a cafeteria’s plate glass window in Killeen, Texas, took out a Glock 9-milimeter semiautomatic pistol and a Ruger P89, and methodically shot 22 people to death before shooting himself in the head. (sic)

And the assault weapons ban would not have prevented it.

The always excellent Alphapatriot writes that we unhappy gun-toting libertarians should vote for Bush because Kerry is much worse for gun rights. I agree, he is worse. Kerry and Edwards, neither of which typically can show up for their day jobs to vote on legislation, made special trips back to DC to vote for more gun control. They do this while Kerry never misses an opportunity to pose with a shotgun. He’s a sportsman, ya know. And he was in Vietnam, ya know.

Bush on guns is mixed. He signed shall issue concealed carry into law in Texas. And he recently gave a speech in which he said:

We stand strongly for the Second Amendment, which gives every American the right to bear arms.

He stands so strongly for the right to keep and bear arms that he has promised to sign an extension to the Assault Weapons Ban if it reaches his desk. His apologists are quick to point out that he hasn’t really asked congress to get it to his desk, which is some sort of secret code for I don’t really support it but it’s in my best interest to say I do to get elected. The significance of the assault weapons ban is illustrated in this quote:

“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” – Charles Krauthammer (columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

By voting for Bush, I let the Republicans know that I support their recent anti-gun positions. I also let them know I approve of the initial, symbolic step toward civilian disarmament. This is in addition to the big government actions they’ve recently taken.

I might change my mind by November if the ban sunsets, but don’t count on it. Publicola is running a poll on the issue, go leave your feedback.

Update: I am reminded that it was the Bush Justice Department recognized an individual right to bear arms. The 40 year policy of the JD has been that collective rights argument crap.

Schwarzenegger calls Democrats girlie men. Girlie men everywhere offended.

Update: Apparently, it was XRLQ’s joke first. Dammit.

So, I’m supposed to be surprised that politicians are bought and paid for? Or just surprised they’re bought and paid for by Enron? The AP:

In only a few e-mails, Enron employees laid bare the reality of politics: the money trail from companies seeking favors from lawmakers with the power to grant them.

The e-mails circulated among Enron officials in 2000 and 2001, before the collapse of the Houston energy company, are under review by the House ethics committee, which is considering whether to investigate the fund-raising activities of the No. 2 leader in the House, Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Enron officials map out in the e-mail how to get the most for their financial contributions, while politicians compete for credit in securing large campaign donations from the company.

(snip)

“The e-mails are an indication of what goes on behind closed doors,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, an ethics watchdog group that has filed suits over political fund-raising.

Both Democrats and Republicans, he said, “engage in a shell game that from outside may look at times technically legal, but when you get these communications on contributions solicited for the campaign, their technical arguments fall apart.”

In an e-mail from May 31, 2001, Enron lobbyists Rick Shapiro and Linda Robertson discuss a $50,000 contribution solicited by Republican organizations for a dinner saluting President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

“With the assistance of Congressman Tom DeLay we were able to apply our previously contributed soft money toward this dinner. Consequently, we will be credited as giving $250,000 to this event, even though we are being asked to give only $50,000 in new soft money,” according to the e-mail sent to Enron’s now ex-chairman, Kenneth Lay, and a second executive.

Soft money contributions are made by companies and individuals to political parties. These donations to parties were outlawed by a campaign finance law that went into effect in 2002. Other organizations still can accept soft money dollars but are limited in how they can spend them.

The e-mails show “pretty clearly corporations were being asked for contributions by members of Congress who held the fate of legislation important to corporations in their hands,” said Trevor Potter, president and general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance monitoring group.

Too bad regular folks can’t buy access. It really is abysmal. As much as I oppose the incumbent protection act err campaign finance reform, lawmakers should follow the law. They don’t follow the laws that they pass but seem really surprised when regular Joes don’t comply with said laws. Odd.

A while back, some apologists for Bush’s actions on the assault weapons ban were stating that he was playing lip service but had no intention of acting to see it extended. Well, the anti-gunners think the same thing, only with much more hysteria:

To fuzz up the issue and soften his political image, Mr. Bush continues to pay lip service to backing the reauthorization of the gun restrictions, which he endorsed as a presidential candidate in 2000. In reality, he knows that he is dooming the assault weapons ban by refusing to instruct the Republican Congressional leaders to get a renewal bill to his desk, pronto.

Additionally, this hysterical piece makes reference to Uzis and AK47s, which are not banned by the assault weapons ban. It even throws in the word terrorism.

The president of the ABA urged renewal of the assault weapons ban:

American Bar Association President Dennis W. Archer today said that, unless President Bush urges Congress to reauthorize the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, “our communities will once again see an increase in senseless violence. We must ensure that the ban remains in effect for the sake of all law-abiding citizens.”

An increase in violence? Has there been a decrease in violent crime as a result of the ban? The Justice Department and CDC both say no.

Archer said these weapons have no place on our streets. “Since enactment of the ban,” he said, “there has been a dramatic reduction in crimes committed with these prohibited firearms.”

A dramatic reduction from an already insignificant number remains insignificant. And I thought lawyers were smart.

*note: this doesn’t mean those lawyers that I know or who read this site.

Matt takes on the other biased Washington paper.

The happiest day of your life is when you witness the birth of your child. All the fear you had washes away and a sense of calm coupled with responsibility overpowers over you. It’s indescribable.

The second happiest day of your life is when you can pawn her off on the grandparents for an evening so you and the Mrs. can go have dinner with adults.

Screw you guys, I’m outta here.

If you think that being alert to suspicious behavior by someone on a plane is a good move, then you are very clearly racist. That’s fairly lame. I think the behavior warranted suspicion and I would have become quite alert. In fact, I’d draw attention of it to other passengers in the event it warranted intervention. And I’d tell them to knock it off.

Not worrying about it may lead to some sort of feeling of moral superiority but refusing to become alert to the situation doesn’t make you a racist, it makes you smart.