50 minutes into the debate and I am done with it. Same thing, over and over.

Bush: Kerry is inconsistent.

Kerry: Bush guarded oil wells and I have a plan (one I can’t talk about, apparently).

The first thirty minutes I would call a Kerry victory, which is not good for Bush since he’s viewed as the stronger wartime candidate and this is the war debate. The last twenty minutes, both droned and repeated their talking points. The droning will be good for Kerry because as long as he refrains from saying anything stupid, I think he can win this one.

Update: Meanwhile, the Boston Globe called the debate for Kerry 7 hours before the debate actually started.

And, by the way, this is probably the most animated and charismatic I have seen Kerry.

First, CBS had the bogus draft story. Then NBC. Now, Rock The Vote:

“Rock the Vote”..supposedly a “non profit” organization are recruiting young Americans to register to vote with scary “your gonna get drafted unless you vote” tactics. Check out this pack of “non-biased”, “non profit” lies.
Here is a synopsis of the first propaganda “educational” film:

Young Black guy: “I just got this sweet job. Hopefully in 6 months I can start my own business”
Young Black girl: “Thats if you dont get drafted first.
Young black guy: “Drafted?”
Young black girl: “Drafted…for the war.
Young black guy: “They can do that?”
Voice over…
“One of the many issues that can be decided this election”

Kevin is just on a roll lately. Go read the whole thing. Yeah, I mean his whole blog.

The Constitution Party is criticizing Bush for his silence on the DC gun ban repeal:

At various campaign stops around the country, President Bush has said, to applause, that he stands “strongly for the Second Amendment, which gives every American the indivisible right to bear arms.” But, his failure to support Rep. Mark Souder’s (R-Ind.) legislation which would repeal all of Washington DC’s laws which prohibit private gun ownership shows that when it comes to the Constitutionally-protected right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, Mr. Bush is all talk and no action.

As recently as September 28, 2004, the “Washington Post” reported White House spokesman Claire Buchan as having “declined to comment on the specifics of Souder’s bill.”

Bush, after saying he’d support the AWB, was also criticized for his silence on the issue by the anti-gunners. Then, his campaign basically lied after the ban expired and said they pushed for the ban.

I’m sure the Senate would pass the gun ban repeal bill if Bush prompted them to do so. OK, Mr. Pro-Gun President, let’s see it.

Apparently, Jack Daniel’s has started watering down its whiskey:

If you’ve noticed that your Jack Daniel’s is carrying a little less kick these days, you’re probably right.

The famed “sippin’ whiskey,” which advertises a recipe traced back to the nation’s first registered distillery, has lowered the alcohol content of its flagship brand, Old No.7 Black Label.

The whiskey now registers 80 proof, instead of 86 (or 40 percent alcohol versus 43 percent), and some drinkers feel betrayed.

“You can’t screw with a legend like that and get away with it,” said Frank Kelly Rich, editor of Modern Drunkard magazine. “I’m sure Jack is spinning in his grave.”

The company says the switch was made because most customers prefer the less potent mix, which was marketed first in a few states and some overseas markets. The transition was completed earlier this year.

Those who want a stiffer drink can buy specialty versions like Jack Daniel’s Single Barrel at 94 proof, the company said.

If anything would bring about a cultural revolution, it’d be this.

Via XRLQ, go sign this petition to stop BSL in North Carolina.

Well, that’s the headline. If by tougher, they mean not based on anything useful:

Pit bulls and certain breeds of dogs are now more expensive to keep in Coulee Dam and may be on the way to being banned altogether.

The town council last week passed changes to the town’s pet ordinance that names “pit bulls” as dangerous dogs and imposes strict conditions on their owners.

The issue arose last month when Holly Street residents said a neighbor was planning to raise pit bulls, a breed famous for its ability – some say vicious propensity – to fight other dogs.

“I had to have my fence made solid because they were trying to get at me through the fence when I mowed my lawn,” Connie Babler said.

Pit bulls are defined in the ordinance as dogs older than six months with Staffordshire bull terrier, American bull terrier, American bulldog or American Staffordshire terrier breeding.

It’s official, Politically Incorrect Dog is now a pit bull, somewhere.

Owners may now keep only one such dog, must keep it indoors or in a secure, locked pen with a roof and buy a $250,000 surety bond in case it hurts someone.

Those restrictions were even more stringent than the changes proposed by Police Chief Pat Collins, who has been working with tribal police on a policy that both departments would find enforceable.

But proponents found support on the council for an even harsher proposal – an outright ban.

A ban simply won’t be effective. Additionally, basing the determination for viciousness on breed is not objective nor is it effective.

The US House passed the DC gun ban repeal. This gesture is mostly symbolic because the Senate likely won’t take the issue up. As I said, it keeps the anti-gunners on the defense instead of offense. The VPC, pulling out every knee jerk misrepresentation they can think of, issued a press release:

Bill Would Repeal DC Handgun Ban, Allow Semiautomatic 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles and Assault Rifles to be Carried Throughout City

Since its passage, repeal of the DC handgun ban has been the National Rifle Association’s Holy Grail. This effort is being undertaken without regard for the safety of DC residents — or our national leaders. This bill not only repeals DC’s handgun ban, but also legalizes semiautomatic assault weapons and 50 caliber sniper rifles in the District of Columbia. One out of five police officers slain in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon. Yet this bill legalizes the possession of all assault weapons in DC and even removes restrictions on armor-piercing ammunition. Under the bill, AK-47s and AR-15s can legally be carried on city streets or virtually any other place in the District.

I have never seen this many of the VPC’s hysterical, misleading lies in one place before (italicized for your convenience). Ain’t it something? Additionally, they have a misleading tirade about 50 calibers but at least they don’t allege they can shoot planes out of the sky.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero:

democracy abhors undue secrecy

Marrero struck down a provision of the Patriot Act that allowed the FBI to demand, unchecked, confidential customer records, such as credit info, internet service records and other things.

Update: Apparently, the law overturned is not part of the Patriot Act says one of the Volokhs (they all look the same, you know).

Check the graphic, yo.

“You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”
— Albert Einstein

“If you wish for peace, prepare for war.”
— Roman Proverb

I recently saw the Einstein quote on a bumper sticker (along with, I think, a Phish sticker and maybe a Dean sticker). Now, according to the quotations page I have linked up there, this is “attribtued” to Einstein, so I guess maybe he didn’t actually say it. Remember also another Roman quote:

“They made a wasteland and called it peace.”
— Publius Cornelius Tacitus

So, maybe the Romans had a different brand of peace in mind than did Prof. Einstein. As an informal poll of our audience, who do you side with here? One of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, or some dead Romans? Both? Neither? Discuss!

CBS apparently will never learn. They ran a story about the latest political bogeyman, the draft. The story was based on bogus and debunked internet email hoaxes.

Krugman and Bubba both predict that, well, I’ll let Krugman explain:

Let’s face it: Whatever happens in Thursday’s debate, cable news will proclaim President Bush the winner. This will reflect the political bias so evident during the party conventions. It will also reflect the undoubted fact that Bush does a pretty good Clint Eastwood imitation.

Let’s face it, guys, Kerry is not a charismatic man (even less so than the almost robotic Al Gore). He also doesn’t have a single noteworthy thing that I can think of attributed to him in his decades in the Senate. Kerry will probably lose because Kerry is Kerry.

Methinks Krugman and Bubba are taking the safe bet. Predicting Kerry will lose so that later they can tell people I told you so.

Dear lord. I am literally without speech. Via Spoons.

Jeff details one of the dumbest ideas I’ve seen:

In the wake of CBS News’ “60 Minutes” controversy, an influential Republican on Tuesday said he wants to convene a Capitol Hill hearing on TV news operations after the Nov. 2 election.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chair of the House Commerce Committee, told a meeting of the TV engineering trade group MSTV in Washington that broadcast network news divisions “need to have safeguards to prevent reporters from infusing their opinions into news reports.”

The lawmaker said he wanted to hear from execs of all the nets — not just CBS — and threatened to introduce legislation requiring TV news operations to impose safeguards against partisan bias seeping into reports. He backed off the threat of legislation when pressed for specifics.

There’s a fine line between regulating bias (think of the bloggers that will be out of work!) and outright limits on free speech. Actually, I kid. There’s no fine line. An attempt to regulate bias would be an blatant violation of free speech protections.

Additionally, how the hell do you measure bias?

Gunner is distraught. He had a good idea for a protest and no one participated. I meant to blog it but it got put on the back burner, then I got busy, yada yada yada. Actually, I’m not joking. That really happened. I’ve been busy.

It’s hard to rally the blogosphere (unless you’re one of the huge bloggers) because there are just so many of us. Don’t take it personally, buddy, but lots of people read lots of blogs. It’s hard to read them all and participate in every cool idea that comes along (and yours is a cool idea). Just keep trying, you are making a difference even if it is one person at a time.

Now, get over there and participate in his banned book drive.

You remember that episode of Seinfeld where George does the opposite of what he would ordinarily do and suddenly his life turns around for the better? Yeah, that’s what I think of Gore’s advice to Kerry.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of eminent domain in New London, CT (which I’ve written about a few times):

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide when governments can seize homes and businesses for economic development projects, a key question as cash-strapped cities seek ways to generate tax revenue.

At issue is the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain provided the owner is given “just compensation” and the land is taken for “public use.”

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to budge, arguing that it was an unjustified takeover of their property.

I’m not too optimistic, given how the court has generally let the people down lately. At issue is whether or not a city can take from one private individual and give to another (which is not public use) to develop businesses.

The proposed repeal is a good thing (even if it doesn’t pass) because it keeps the anti-gunners working to maintain. While they work to maintain the status quo, they devote less time to affecting new laws. So, call your congress critters and tell them you support repeal of DC’s draconian gun laws.

Brady Bunch press release:

If the bill passes, it will be legal in the District of Columbia:

* For teenagers and adults to openly carry a loaded semiautomatic rifle, including an AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifle, on city streets without a permit [H.R. 3193, sections 7-8, repealing D.C. Code sections 7-2502.02, 7-2502.03, 7-2507.02]

Perusing the code, there is no mention of semiautomatic assault rifles. It seems to me that DC would, like most of the rest of the country, allow minors to own weapons provided that their parents bought them for them. There was no mention that I found in the three laws that specified someone could carry and AK-47 down the street.

They also go through some other ridiculous points (that are comparable to gun laws in most states, I might add) and they include the phrase semiautomatic assault weapons in each one of them. More hysteria from the anti-gunners.

A good letter to the editor about coverage of the assault weapons ban:

Naturally, you do not question the ban’s constitutionality. Second Amendment aside, its basis is the Constitution’s “commerce clause,” yet no one has proved these weapons affect interstate commerce. Liberals would never use the commerce clause to support federal censorship of the media, which would subvert the First Amendment.

No one of importance seems to question the constitutionality of anything these days.

This article makes an interesting statement:

The bill lifting the gun ban in the District of Columbia is expected to pass the House. But Senate leaders likely won’t touch it, largely out of fears that it would restart debate about the 10-year semiautomatic assault weapons ban that GOP congressional leaders and the White House let expire earlier this month. Most Americans support the weapons ban, according to opinion polls.

I suppose they assume that a bill restricting gun control would have gun control bills (like the AWB) attached to it, much like what happened during the gun industry immunity bill.

I’d like to see the DC gun laws ban gone. But I can’t say I’d be willing to trade it for the AWB.

In comments over at Publicola’s, bjbarron writes:

All pets go to heaven…if they don’t, I don’t want to live there.

Ok, I’m a little behind, but it’s still funny. Via William Beck of Two–Four, we have this hysterical screed from “Moby”:

in 1994 bill clinton passed a law banning the sale of automatic assault weapons.
now under george bush the law has lapsed, so it is now, as of today, legal to buy fully automatic assault weapons in the u.s.a. yes, now there can be more mass murders at the hands of lunatics with fully automatic ak-47’s purchased legally over the internet.

Yeah…as Mr. Beck says, PLEASE send me a link where I can buy “fully automatic ak-47’s…legally over the internet.”

I posted this earlier today looking for high err regular capacity 7.62 AR mags. I now have access to ten of them (though I’m debating if I need that many). Pretty cool.

Thanks, airboss.

In England, there was a protest:

Pro-hunt demonstrators dumped animal carcasses and women went topless amid noisy protests on Tuesday outside Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labor Party conference.

Blowing horns and waving signs that read: “Fight Prejudice, Fight the Ban” and “Fox-Off Blair,” about 8,000 demonstrators against plans to outlaw fox-hunting marched along the Brighton seafront, flanked by hundreds of police in riot gear.

Several women dressed in black bathing suits removed their tops and jumped into the chilly English Channel waters as part of the protest. They were joined by members of “Surfers 4 Hunting” riding surfboards.

See, that’s a protest that could keep someone’s attention. Nudity tends to do that. Here, all we get are smelly hippies and guys in pajamas.

I am looking for some USA 7.62 AR15 magazines, commonly called Frankenmags, or equivalent (which are basically an AK47 style mag bottom slapped onto an AR15 style mag bottom). I’m having trouble finding them. If anyone has any ideas, leave a comment.

This post debates (and leaves open ended) the meaning of the second amendment. Publius concludes the second amendment’s meaning is indeterminate, which I heartily disagree with. But I’ll let an expert (Roy Copperud) address it’s meaning:

[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ’shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ’shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

The fact is, the collective rights interpretation is a relatively recent phenomenon created with a desired end in mind. No such support for this view existed prior to the 1940s, perhaps even the 1950s.

That aside, Publius states that us gun types aren’t crazy (thanks, though I think people willing to give up their rights are lunatics) and questions whether armed citizens could actually successfully counter the government’s military:

My traditional response had been that these people are living in 1789. First, I had assumed that the notion of armed revolt in the 21st century seemed absurd. Our government would never do anything to justify that. And as a matter of probability, I’d rather take my chances with a narrow Second Amendment rather than allowing urban areas to become infested with lethal weapons in the post-9/11 era where much havoc could be wreaked. Besides, in the age of nuclear weapons, there wasn’t a whole hell of a lot we could do about it anyway. If the government wanted to take us out, it would.

The paleocon [I'm not up to date on my political propaganda, so I don't know what a paleocon is - Ed] response to my point was that I was assuming that just because things have been a certain way for a long time, there’s no reason to believe they will continue being that way. In other words, just because the government hasn’t grown corrupt yet (and I mean to the point of justifying armed revolt), that doesn’t mean it never will. Just look at history. Second, the point of bearing arms is more about the credible threat than revolt itself. From an economics perspective, it raises the costs of potential abusive policies, thus making them less likely to happen.

A few quick points. First, it seems some people in Iraq armed with small arms are keeping the US military machine at bay. The reason for this is that the US isn’t nuking them, much like they wouldn’t nuke their own citizens. You don’t kill everyone to save them.

Second, an citizenry armed with guns would do a better job than citizens armed with sticks and rocks.

The third, and more critical point, is that just because a right may no longer be popular, or may be an anachronism, or may be rendered meaningless by some technological advances the government makes, it doesn’t mean that I or you should be willing to give it up. Period. Ever.

is brought to us by Kevin.

Head has some info on the XM8. The Geek concurs. The XM8 was on Mail Call the other night and some LTC pretty much said it was a go. During the segment, they said it used 5.56. We’ll see if they change that to 6.8.

I hope H&K markets a civilian version, but I’m not holding my breath.

This is rather lame:

Sakinah Aaron was walking into the bus area at the Wheaton Metro station several weeks ago, talking loudly on her Motorola cell phone. A little too loudly for Officer George Saoutis of the Metro Transit Police.

The police officer told Aaron, who is five months pregnant, to lower her voice. She told the officer he had no right to tell her how to speak into her cell phone.

Their verbal dispute quickly escalated, and Saoutis grabbed Aaron by the arm and pushed her to the ground. He handcuffed the 23-year-old woman, called for backup and took her to a cell where she was held for three hours before being released to her aunt. She was charged with two misdemeanors: “disorderly manner that disturbed the public peace” and resisting arrest.

Those are the facts on which both sides agree.

Even though loud cell-phone talkers annoy the crap out of me, they shouldn’t be arrested for it. Hit about the head and neck area by passers-by, sure. Arrested, no. More:

Transit Police and some Metro officials say Saoutis was protecting the peace by removing a woman who had overstepped the boundaries of civil behavior because she was loudly cursing into her phone.

They say that cell phones have become just another instrument of loutish behavior in the public space and that they are fighting a dramatic deterioration of manners in the transit system.

I’m afraid it’s not up to the police to determine what oversteps the boundaries of civil behavior. That would be a matter of law, not law enforcement. It may be offensive, but it doesn’t warrant being taken to the ground, handcuffed and jailed.

The Lawrence Journal-World, which coincidentally is almost as dumb a name for a newspaper as Post Intelligencer, writes:

Justice for killer pit bull delayed by lax enforcement

In Lawrence, owners of dogs found to be “dangerous” must do what a judge orders them to do, such as building a secure pen and registering the dog with the city. If owners don’t comply after 15 days, the law says, the dog will be impounded or put to sleep.

But that’s not exactly what happened in the case of a pit bull that attacked and killed a Chihuahua named Peanut this spring. For more than three months, the pit bull’s owner was allowed to keep the dog without meeting the conditions ordered by Municipal Court Judge Randy McGrath.

The case finally came to a close Thursday, when the pit bull’s owner admitted he hadn’t met all the conditions, city officials said. He was fined $250, and the dog was impounded and probably will be put to sleep this week.

But Tom Fellers, Peanut’s owner, said the fact the pit bull was allowed to remain in the community for so long shows that the city’s system doesn’t have enough teeth.

“It’s a weak law, and it was very weakly enforced by the court once the dog was determined to be dangerous,” Fellers said. “That’s not acceptable.”

While I generally support such a law because it requires that the owner of the pet be held responsible, I don’t like the fact that the reporter used the word justice. Animals don’t comprehend justice and it isn’t applicable to them. The dog probably doesn’t remember the incident and killing the dog isn’t going to dissuade other dogs from doing the same. Justice, like irony, is lost on dogs.

Of course, I like to wait until politically incorrect dog falls asleep on the couch, then I jump on the couch to wake him up. I do this because when I fall asleep, he hops on the couch and wakes me up. While I get a bit of satisfaction out of it, my dog doesn’t get it.

Via Tom: No this isn’t me.

Me and a buddy went to this weekend’s gun show. I had the itch and, dammit, I was going to buy something. I did, more on that later. The show was disappointing. There wasn’t any post-post ban stuff there. What little bit was there was ridiculously high in price. I guess the streets aren’t flooded yet. Regular capacity magazines were still running high in price (except one guy who had regular capacity Glock magazines stamped Law Enforcement Only – which now means nothing – for $29. He planned ahead and bought in advance, apparently). People were still trying to sell AR mags for $20 (sorry, no ban and I expect to pay less than $10) and people still had pre-ban prices on pre-ban guns. Mind you, you can get a brand new one that is identical for much, much less, if you can find one.

I decided a while back that I wanted a shorty AR and that I wanted an AK clone. I decided to combine the two and got an AR15 kit that is chambered in 7.62X39. I’ve heard some of these have feeding problems due to magazine issues. We’ll see how it works. I bought the kit from the fine folks at J&T Distributing and began looking for a lower receiver. Problem is, they don’t exist. People are snatching them up. One guy at the show had one and he wanted $275 for it (they sell new for $120). I asked him why it was so high and he said because it was pre-ban. I almost told him there wasn’t a ban anymore but felt I’d be wasting my breath. Obviously, I passed on his lower.

I started calling all the gun shops I know of and none of them had receivers. Finally, I stopped by Predator Custom Shop and ordered one (for $120) that should be here in a week or two. The guy told me that since the ban, he can’t keep any ARs or lowers. He said he sold 28 ARs and 16 lowers since 9/13. He also told me there is only one supplier who can keep up with his demand and that’s the lower I ordered.

So, to conclude:

Gun dealers are either bastards or don’t know the ban is gone and that people will no longer pay $1,500 for a $700 rifle. Nor will they pay $100 for a $20 magazine.

Only one dealer had the foresight to try to meet the demand caused by the ban’s expiration.

Nobody stocked post-post ban guns. No one. Just kits.

Good luck getting a lower receiver for an AR15.

I think I saw my first this weekend. Went to Lowe’s and bought some stuff but the grill I bought wouldn’t fit in the truck. The plan was to take the Mrs., Junior and all our stuff home then go back and get the grill. On the way home, we saw some people carrying signs at the AAA building. Then, going back to Lowe’s, there were hundreds of pro-lifers on Lamar Alexander Parkway holding up signs from the court house all the way to the 129 bypass. I got the grill, headed back (total time of thirty minutes) and when I got back to the parkway, they were all gone. Like they were never there. You don’t see that every day.

A federal judge ruled Tennessee’s choose-life license plates unconstitutional.

Alphie reports that Kerry’s camp is claiming that Kerry’s Chinese assault weapon is really an old bolt action:

[A campaign spokesman] said the gun had no make or model markings on it and that Mr. Kerry “got it from a friend years ago,” adding that such rifles were first manufactured in Russia more than 100 years ago and were used by the North Koreans and the Vietcong….

Though the comment was presented by Outdoor Life as part of an “exclusive interview with the two presidential candidates,” four pages that included many long, conversational answers using first-person pronouns, Mr. Meehan said Mr. Kerry’s portions were written by his staff. A public relations representative for Outdoor Life did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Show us the rifle, Senator. And as Alphie says:

Did the enemy really use 70-year-old guns or did they use the ones flooding across the border from China? Whatever, one thing is sure: Kerry sure does hire some blundering idiots for his staff. I wonder who he plans to put in his cabinet?

So, again, Kerry proves that he, marketing himself as a pro-gun candidate, doesn’t know much about guns. I have to wonder, if he really thinks an old bolt action is an assault weapon, does he want those banned as well?

Jeff has the latest.

Michael Bowen on Kerry’s unnatural looking handling of guns:

Ronald Reagan’s daughter Patti once told a story from her childhood about watching, with her father, a movie starring Doris Day and Rock Hudson. When they kissed in the final scene, it just didn’t seem right to her. Awkward, somehow unnatural. She asked her dad about it, and he answered matter-of-factly, “You see, honey, Mr. Hudson doesn’t have much experience with kissing women. He’d really rather be kissing a man.”

Kerry’s shotgun waving, skeet shooting, and bird hunting are just a pose. His heart is really in the gun control camp, and when he appears at the range or in the field, his tin ear shows through every time. His gun-handling habits are awkward, and at times actually unsafe. If you’re all familiar with shooting, it’s like watching Rock Hudson kissing Doris Day.

The New York Times notes that:

Senator John Kerry, a hunter who supported the recently expired assault weapons ban, frequently tells audiences he has never met anyone who wanted to use an AK-47 to shoot a deer. But it is not clear what Mr. Kerry does with the Chinese assault rifle he told Outdoor Life magazine he kept in his personal collection.

In interviews appearing in the October issue of Outdoor Life, Mr. Kerry and President Bush were asked whether they were gun owners, and, if so, to identify their favorite gun.

Mr. Bush named the Weatherby 20 gauge (although he gave a slightly different answer in a separate chat with Field and Stream magazine.) Mr. Kerry’s answer was more complicated.

“My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam,” Mr. Kerry told the magazine. “I don’t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.”

Mr. Kerry’s campaign would not say what model rifle Mr. Kerry was referring to, where he got it and when, or how many guns he owned. A spokesman for the senator, Michael Meehan, said Mr. Kerry was a registered gun owner in Massachusetts. On Thursday morning, Mr. Meehan said he had not been able to ask Mr. Kerry about the rifle because of Mr. Kerry’s hoarse voice; he did not respond to further inquiries.

Kevin has the round up on this issue. All I would add is:

Show us the gun, senator. Is this a typical case of it’s Ok for you but not the little people?

The Courier Post has said, surprising to most, that criminals don’t obey gun laws. Actually, what they say is that Federal gun ban’s demise will weaken N.J. protections:

The good news is that New Jersey’s ban on assault weapons still stands despite the refusal by the Republican-dominated Congress to renew a federal ban.

The bad news is that, without the federal ban in place, it’s only a matter of time before military-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines start showing up in New Jersey after first being purchased legally in other states.

Because criminals don’t obey laws. More:

It’s a travesty that this successful ban on dangerous devices designed to kill people was allowed to disappear.

Police officials said that, before President Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994, weapons such as those banned by the law were the instruments of choice for organized gangs. Since the ban, violent crime has declined every year, reaching its lowest level ever in 2003, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Actually, no the didn’t. In fact, the Trenton, NJ chief Joseph Constance said in 1993:

Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to encounter an escaped tiger from the zoo than to confront an assault weapon in the hands of of a drug-crazed killer on the streets

Keeble McFarlane:

Once again, the gun fetishists who with their overflowing coffers and braying voices tend to drown out anyone who tries to talk reason in the United States have won out over common sense. On Monday of last week, two days after what’s become a new annual tradition of wallowing in grief over the attacks on the World Trade Centre in 2001, the US Congress let a 10-year-old law banning the sale of certain types of guns lapse without so much as lifting a finger to renew it. The law banned the sale of certain types of military assault weapons, such as Uzis, AK-47s and AR-15s, which are capable of firing multiple rounds when the trigger is squeezed.

The ban doesn’t affect machine guns. Only machine guns are capable of firing multiple rounds when the trigger is squeezed.

So…where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has been granted permission to pay for “health care” and education?

And if you say “general welfare,” please turn in your voter registration card; you obviously don’t understand the Constitution and are a danger to our Republic.

That’s what this article says. Of course, by police chiefs they mean one police chief in Dyersberg. What is particularly funny is this image (go ahead and look, I’ll wait). Neither weapon shown was covered by the ban. Both are post ban models.

Dyersburg Police Chief Bobby Williamson is an idiot.

What is wrong with this picture?

Today’s idiot is Thomas Withers, who apparently wants us to know he’s a former member of the NRA. This idiot thinks the expiration of the ban will mark the end of the NRA as a political force:

Eventually, someone with an assault weapon — as before the ban — will assassinate all the customers in a fast food store or kill a dozen or more workers in a manufacturing plant, all with a gun that doesn’t need reloading. When this happens, as it did in Australia, Britain and California, there will be an uprising unlike any we have ever seen demanding common-sense gun control laws we would have except for paranoia in the National Rifle Association.

The laws enacted will require the registration of all gun owners, the registration of all guns owned, and limit the number of guns a person may buy in a year. Mention these three laws, and any NRA member worth his shooter’s cap will have a panic attack.

The expiration of the assault weapons ban should be a wake-up call to expose the warped thinking and mendacious actions of the NRA. We don’t have to wait for a mass murder. A good place to begin is by showing that the NRA’s “patriotic” defense of the Second Amendment is nothing more than hogwash. It uses the Second Amendment as a smokescreen to defend its irrational and illogical proposals under the pretext that legality equals sanity.

Eventually, the murder will happen. But I’ll bet the assault weapons ban would not have prevented it, just like it didn’t prevent Columbine.

Apparently, someone is going to gas stations in Ohio and telling them they need to put up No CCW signs because they sell beer:

There is someone going around (again) to Summit county convenient stores and gas stations telling them that they must post ‘No CCW’ signs because they sell alcohol. The gentleman in question is even nice enough to give the stores the ‘No CCW’ signs free of charge. I have compiled info and supplied it to a couple stores. Upon seeing the truth, they have removed the signs.

North Little Rock is looking at passing breed specific legislation:

Some North Little Rock residents are seeking a ban on pit bulls and the city council will be holding public hearings on the proposal.

North Little Rock updated its vicious dog ordinance last year to prohibit wolf hybrids, but didn’t ban a specific breed.

Pit bulls actually are not a breed, but rather a group of dogs with similar traits and characteristics, according to the Pit Bull Rescue Central Web site.

The proposal would allow pit bull owners who currently have a city dog license or who get one before the ordinance goes into effect, to keep their dogs. But the owners must register the dog by allowing city Animal Services to tattoo it for identification
purposes.

Unlicensed pit bulls or those brought into the city after the law takes effect would be illegal and violators could be criminally prosecuted.

Kudos to KATV for actually researching what a pit bull really is. Shame on them for not presenting the other side of the argument, which is basically that breed specific legislation has many problems and doesn’t work.

CBS again tries to equate the assault weapons ban as a health issue:

But it’s difficult to imagine that gun-control laws didn’t have at least something to do with the drop. And that’s what has health-care professionals worried now that a federal ban on assault-weapons and gear like large-capacity ammunition clips has been allowed to lapse after 10 years.

While there is a tremendous political debate over gun laws, in America’s emergency rooms and trauma centers the questions are not about politics but about carnage: How many more victims will have to be treated and at what cost to society?

Health-care reporter Kristen Gerencher’s Vital Signs looks at the public-health issues surrounding the demise of the assault-weapons ban. Read her column, plus see what the IMF thinks about the possibility of a global bubble in housing prices and get retirement columnist Robert Powell’s advice on figuring just how big your nest egg needs to be, on Thursday’s Personal Finance pages.

Yes, the assault-weapons ban was flawed. But if we’re not willing to at least try to take some military-like shooting instruments off the streets we better be prepared to pony up with more sutures, gauze, IVs and plasma.

These weapons were used in such a minuscule number of crimes that the impact would be utterly insignificant. The blood in the streets, AK47s, and weapon of choice for terrorists angle didn’t work so we’re up to something else.

Since he asked, molon labe.

SFGate:

Pelosi developed the New Partnership based on a consensus of ideas put forward by Democratic members. As a result, the platform — which will be distributed to all Democratic House candidates on a palm-sized card they can use on the stump — doesn’t mention such divisive issues as abortion, the expired assault weapons ban or same-sex marriage.

A friend of mine has a cool job. Her and her little team try to sneak bombs, guns, knives, and other such devices of mayhem (all fake, of course) on airplanes. She tells me her team has never been caught. So, this doesn’t surprise me:

Undercover investigators were able to sneak explosives and weapons past security screeners at 15 airports nationwide, according to a government report on aviation security.

The government watchdog for the Department of Homeland Security, Clark Kent Ervin, delivered the results of the tests in a classified report to members of Congress. “The performance was poor,” said Ervin, the department’s inspector general, in releasing a less detailed version Wednesday.

The tests were done during the second half of 2003. But they highlight ongoing vulnerabilities in the nation’s aviation security system, particularly in detecting explosives such as those that Russian authorities say were used to bring down two airliners last month.

But don’t ever show the screeners your tweezers.

A truth commonly taught in self defense classes, particularly the rape/abduction prevention classes for women, is you don’t allow yourself to go to the second location. If someone abducts you and gets you in the trunk of a car or to a basement, it’s over for you. Not only is it over, it is usually particularly brutal and the abductor can take their time, have the advantage of no witnesses, and do whatever psychotic things they’re going to do. Make your stand at the abduction point.

The recent spate of executions of hostages in Iraq should be a testament to that. I am uncertain of the details of their abduction but I am fairly certain that their last few days were horrible. They were likely beaten, humiliated, tortured, belittled, and had their spirits broken. How else could you explain their demeanor in the tapes in which they beg leaders to give in to demands so their lives would be spared? I can say all that I want that I would never do such a thing but I have not experienced torture nor have I endured what those poor souls went through. And I never will.

At the abduction point, you have a choice to cooperate vs. flee or fight. Your odds at successfully fleeing or fighting are better at the abduction point and almost non-existent at the second location. You can scream, hit, shoot, or whatever at the first location. At the second, you will be restrained or otherwise incapacitated. You should fight and attempt to flee no matter what the cost before this point. You may die. And you may still be abducted but it is your best option. The alternative (certain death following brutality) is much more hideous. And by fight, fight for your life. Fight with all you have. Never stop. Never give in. Fight dirty. Fight mean. And make a lot of noise. Die on your feet if you have to. You cannot reason with them at the second location, they have too much invested in you.

These poor folks who were abducted and subsequently brutally murdered (likely after being tortured) would have stood a better chance at the first location. We wouldn’t be seeing videos of them begging for their lives or having their heads sawed off by a bunch rabid zealots.

When you go down, you go down fighting.

Heh. Well, not really Heh as in funny. More like Heh as in what the hell.

Bob Barr:

The debate over “assault weapons” was largely unheard of prior to the late 1980s. It was in 1988 that gun ban advocate Josh Sugarman told gun control advocates they needed a new issue around which to rally public support for their efforts to restrict handgun possession. The new issue became “assault weapons.”

Actual “assault weapons” were long defined to be military-style weapons capable of fully automatic firing — guns already heavily regulated and illegal in the hands of all but a miniscule portion of the civilian population since the 1930s. Despite that, Sugarman and his followers began throwing the term around to describe all sorts of firearms that were not capable of automatic firing.

The ploy worked. Members of both houses of Congress jumped on board, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and then-House member (now Sen.) Charles Schumer of New York. They used the term so often — and so disingenuously — that the public largely bought into the argument that so-called “assault weapons” were flooding our streets, and that AK-47s and Uzi submachine guns were killing innocent Americans day in and day out in communities all across America. (Of course, this wasn’t happening, but that didn’t slow the propaganda.)

The ban has always represented a symbol for gun control and nothing more. With it gone, they are losing. The push for it will continue.

Amy Fisher is either an idiot or a liar:

In 1994, President Clinton signed into law the ban of 19 types of dangerous assault weapons. There was a stipulation, or “sunset clause,” which stated the ban would be lifted in 10 years if Congress didn’t renew it. President Bush claims he would sign the bill renewing the ban if it made its way across his desk. Unbelievably, these assault weapons that will now flood the streets of the United States are the same type our military is trying so hard to get off the streets of Iraq.

Lie number one. The weapons in Iraq are machine guns. The assault weapons ban did not affect machine guns.

In 1994 the Internet wasn’t commonplace in every home, providing people with unlimited access to just about any type of information they desire. The Internet has also become a tool for the unethical and even the criminal to market products such as legalized guns and medications, without really knowing to whom they are selling these products. . . It only stands to reason that there will be opportunists offering assault weapons like Uzis, AK-47s and TEC-9s online without giving a second thought as to who the purchaser is on the other side of the screen. Online gun distributors have already offered assault weapons and related products for presale so that anyone who wanted these items could have them in their hands on Sept. 13th, when the ban expired.

And any legal firearms purchase done online is required to go through a Federally Firearms License, aka a gun store owner. You don’t just hop on Ebay and buy a gun. If you do, you’re breaking the law.

A global tax on gun purchases:

This is not the first time Chirac and other world leaders have called for a global tax.

Last year, some at the G8 summit meeting floated the idea of a global tax on arms sales, including – at Chirac’s suggestion – a tax on gun purchases by individuals.

In a speech at the annual meeting of the “Group of Eight,” or G8, da Silva pushed the arms-sales tax as a scheme whereby the world’s wealthiest nations could fund efforts to eliminate world hunger.

Wreaking of desperation:

Gun-law demise worries health experts
End of assault-weapon ban may add to trauma costs

[snip]

Specifics aside, what the assault-weapons ban really did was make injury prevention a national priority, medical experts said.

“For a decade, we had a national consensus that included the policymakers that we had to be careful, at least a bit careful, about what kind of weapons we put out there,” said Dr. Katherine Kaufer Christoffel, a professor of pediatrics and preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine.

“What the elimination of the assault-weapons ban says to me is we’re going back to viewing this as a purely criminal-justice issue and not a public-health issue, and I think that’s a mistake, a turn in the wrong direction.”

Freedom is not a public-health issue, you loon. Additionally, since these weapons were involved in an underwhelming less than one percent of crimes, it’s quite a stretch to speculate on it’s impact on health care costs. Those costs will be insignificant if not non-existent.

Go read this. So full of misinformation and lies, it’s not funny. I left a comment (and you should too!) there and we’ll see if the editor decides to print it.

Apparently, Australian politicos think Americans have some sort of disease:

we will find any means we can to further restrict them [Guns - ed.] because I hate guns. I don’t think people should have guns unless they’re police or in the military or in the security industry. There is no earthly reason for people to have … ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.”

So, how’s that gun ban thing working for you guys anyway? And, for what it’s worth, I think that is the most pro-gun I have seen Tim Lambert because he disagrees with that statement.

CCRKBA has filed a complaint against the Brady Campaign and the Million Er Twenty Four Mom March for lying in their advertisements:

“Since at least three national law enforcement or police organizations, the American Federation of Police & Concerned Citizens, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police, did not provide such support,” wrote Snyder, “it is evident that the Center has engaged in deceptive advertising.”

Maybe they can take on the VPC’s supposed studies next?

Congrats to The Comedian for his mention in Time Magazine.

ABC News:

Information on passengers who took a commercial flight within the United States in June will be turned over to the government so it can test a new system for identifying potential terrorists.

I don’t think there were any attacks in June so how exactly will that data test the system?

People will have a chance to tell the government what they think about the plan during a 30-day comment period, federal officials said on Tuesday.

Ok, I’ll start. It’s an unnecessary invasion of privacy; it has already cost $103M; it will cost much, much more to keep going; and it will not prevent a single terror attack.

How was that?

In other news, Blount County has adult oriented businesses? It seems after public outcry (which probably consisted of ten people from a church), my fair county is making an attempt at regulating such businesses. And by regulate, I’m sure they mean put out of business:

Adult entertainment businesses in Blount County will now be regulated by a local board.

In its first meeting, Blount County’s Adult-Oriented Establishment Board selected a chairman and reviewed the application process prospective business owners will have to follow under state law.

The county’s unlicensed businesses owners will have 120 days to apply. That will include two adult-oriented businesses now operating in Blount County, one on U.S. 411 and the other on East Lamar Alexander Parkway.

The deadline for existing businesses to file will be Jan. 5, 2005.

One business, Sunshyne Video Two, prompted community protest and led to Blount County Commissioners adoption on Sept. 9 of the Adult-Oriented Registration Act of 1998 and approval of a five-member board to regulate adult-oriented businesses.

Committee members also wrestled with which county offices should give out the license applications and who would take them once completed.

Keith McCord, an attorney and the committee’s new chairman, said the application process is 30 days long. Applications are reviewed by the Blount County’s Sheriff’s Office in the first 20 days, and the committee has 10 days to review and vote on the application.

The committee settled on the Blount County mayor’s office as the location to distribute and receive the applications.

Quote:

In my opinion the reason for the assault weapons ban can be summed like this: These guns look scary.

This is perhaps the dumbest breed specific legislation I have ever seen and I think all BSL is stupid:

It is now illegal to have more than one pit bull at a location in the city of Tiffin for more than 90 days.

Tiffin City Council approved an ordinance to limit one pit bull – full or or mixed breed – per household, giving the owner three months to find another home for puppies.

Why? Because . . .

Tiffin Police Chief David LaGrange said D’Andre Woods of Tiffin was charged twice with letting pit bulls run loose. He said the second charge, a felony, is pending in the Seneca County Common Pleas court.

And somehow that law will solve the problem? More proof that the desired impact of a law is the appearance of doing something rather than, you know, actually doing something.

Have we gone too far? I’d say the answer is yes:

Gun control is the ultimate extension of the “government-as-parent” scenario which posits that Americans are either too stupid or too ignorant to take care of themselves. While I won’t argue that our nation is plagued with an overabundance of idiocy, it is not the responsibility of the government to baby-sit everyone and make sure they don’t stick a fork in a light socket.

Such a mentality towards gun regulation only punishes the average citizen by depriving themselves of the right to defend their person and their property. Criminals aren’t likely to care about where they find their firearms because, hey, they’re criminals. When they rob a store the last thing they’re worried about is whether or not their handgun is licensed.

Yet that reaction is what we’ve come to expect from our society. When one lone nutjob storms into a school and kills five people, public outcry doesn’t lay blame on the criminal who committed the crime, it lands on the society that gave him free access to a semi-automatic weapon and the legislators who, despite campaign promises to the contrary, cannot see the future and foretell every human tragedy that will ever occur in his or her jurisdiction.

This article on manly men running for office says:

The powerhouse lobbying group in the race is the National Rifle Association, which has nearly 4 million members and a $20 million budget for ads and other political activities. The group is running a 30-minute infomercial about Bush and Kerry on local network affiliates in seven or eight battleground states.

The NRA, which has endorsed Bush, calls Kerry “the most anti-gun presidential nominee in United States history” because of his votes for gun-control legislation. Kerry supports mandatory child-safety locks on handguns; Bush does not. Bush would protect gunmakers from liability lawsuits; Kerry would not. Kerry and Bush both would close a loophole that lets people buy guns at gun shows without a background check. Kerry voted for the 10-year ban on certain assault weapons that expired this month; Bush said he would sign an extension but did not lobby Congress to send him one.

The infomercial is anti-Kerry. I don’t know that it is pro-Bush. And, to my knowledge, the NRA hasn’t endorsed Bush yet.

Speaking of, a while back I pledged that if the ban sunsets, I’ll join the NRA. I guess I should probably do that now.

Sure, it’s not a significant operational link, but how long before the New York Times draws us a handy little chart/map detailing the relationship between CBS and the Kerry campaign?

Update: that was fast.

Earlier, I ragged the claim that DC’s gun laws were effective because DC is the murder capital of the world. I was wondering how the anti-gun folks could possibly spin that. Turns out, they did:

The effectiveness of the District’s current ban on handgun possession is demonstrated by the fact that virtually none of the guns used in crime in the District originated here.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Yes, they do think people are stupid.

Go to Kevin’s, who is asking people to contact their congressmen to urge the repeal of DC’s ridiculous gun laws ban.

Alphie deals with the prevalence of crimes with rifles in New York. I wonder why that report is unpublished?

The latest media kerfuffle is the allegation that CBS News and the Democratic National Committee staged a coordinated attack against the President. Kerry Spot is trumpeting the dump Kerry angle.

Said the White House:

The fact that CBS News would coordinate with the most senior levels of Sen. Kerry’s campaign to attack the president is a stunning and deeply troubling revelation

No wonder there are reports (from Drudge, so take it for what it’s worth) that the Bush admin is calling for a CBS moderator to be removed from the debate.

I think today marks the first time I have seen more articles against the assault weapons ban than for it. A few examples:

Good little read on the politics involved and some truth about the ban:

Slipping in the polls, Senator John Kerry deceitfully accuses President George Bush of not pushing for an extension of the 1994 federal ban on so-called “assault weapons,” which has just expired. Bush deceitfully responds that he supported the ban’s extension and would have signed it but for Congress’s failure to pass it. Both Kerry’s and Bush’s statements are half-truths calculated to mislead voters.

It has been clear for many months that Congress would not bring the extension of the “assault weapon” (AW) ban up for a vote. Neither Congress, the Democrats, nor Bush were willing to make this a major policy issue for the same two reasons. The first reason is purely political.

In the election two months after the AW ban was originally enacted in September of 1994, gun-owners were so successful in retaliating against its supporters (mostly Democrats) that the Republicans gained control of Congress for the first time in 50 years. Then in the 2000 election, Al Gore lost his own state, Tennessee, and had close contests in others, because gun-owners viewed the Democrats as anti-gun.

[snip]

The second reason for non-support of the extension of the ban is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon. This is why the courts have regularly held ”assault weapons” bans as unconstitutionally vague unless specific guns or features are named.

Anti-gun advocates have confessed that they deliberately used the term “assault weapon” to confuse people into thinking that semi-automatic civilian firearms are the same as assault rifles (i.e., machine gun-type weapons that are used by the military and have long been illegal to manufacture and sell to civilians). In fact, armies don’t use AWs because, being only civilian-type arms, they are far less lethal than actual assault rifles.

Just go read the whole thing. It’s good to see the point many bloggers make actually in the press.

Another truthful article about the ban:

Only evil people purposely use weapons against their fellow citizens. Primitive Stone Age tribes were afraid of things such as curses, spells and black magic whatnot. But they did not know any better. We do. Or at least we should.

One of the most absurd gun-grabber advertisements opposing the end of the assault weapons ban featured Osama bin Laden with the caption “Terrorists of 9-11 can hardly wait for 9-13.”

Presumably, terrorists are just as law-abiding as you and I.

Bin Laden probably had every “i” dotted and every “t” crossed on his application forms to purchase the guns. He probably spent the night before the ban ended camped out outside a gun store to be first in line to exercise his re-won Second Amendment right.

How stupid do they think we are?

They (and the press) obviously think people are quite stupid about the ban. Actually, the press is probably just stupid too.

Finally, this one:

Last week, the ten-year-old Federal assault weapons ban expired amid much hype from gun opponents and the national media that the law’s disappearance would suddenly escalate gun-related crime in America. These alarmists claims ring hollow when one looks at the actual facts about the gun ban. The U.S. House leadership has already made it clear that this weapons law will not be renewed.

Gun rights opponents have long made no secret about their intent to limit Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Any way they can block gun access and ownership is a victory for them and a defeat for law-abiding citizens who wish to have guns for their own protection and recreation. The 1994 Federal assault weapons ban is a classic example of why gun control does nothing to stop violent crime.

Yup.

Craig has abandoned his effort at repealing the DC gun ban, for now:

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry E. Craig announced yesterday that he has abandoned a bid to seek a repeal of D.C. gun laws in a Senate committee, and Senate GOP leaders indicated that they did not have time to get bogged down in a debate over gun limits in the weeks before Congress adjourns for the fall elections.

Craig dropped his effort as opponents of the proposed repeal, including parents of District residents killed by gunfire, lobbied senators and held a news conference on Capitol Hill. A similar proposal has been introduced in the House and has more than enough co-sponsors to pass that chamber.

This quote caught my eye as well:

“If the U.S. Capitol can be handgun-free, why can’t we?” asked Hannah Hawkins, director of the Children of Mine Center, a youth services agency in Anacostia.

And how’s that working out for DC? Not good.

The Saratogian:

Last week’s lapse of the 10-year federal ban on assault weapons is great news — for people who make and sell the weapons and for gangs and criminals who get a thrill out of military-style weapons.

Police, who are the usual target of such weapons, are not so happy.

Most cops I know think the ban was a bunch of crap. Additionally, cops are twice as likely to be shot by their own handgun than an assault weapon.

There is absolutely no reason on earth for those weapons to be legal anywhere in the United States.

The ban had nothing to do with allowing people to hunt or own handguns. Rather, it banned weapons that police don’t want on the streets. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all wanted the ban to continue.

Are implying that these are machine guns? Otherwise these weapons are identical in function to any semi-automatic rifle.

This one is just a bunch of outright lies:

Thanks to the end of the U.S. ban on assault weapons, I now am legally able to own a “Street Sweeper” or a “Striker 12” revolving-cylinder semiautomatic shotgun.

Lie number one. Revolving cylinder shotguns are regulated as destructive devices and subject to the same regulation as machine guns.

The guns, as the Associated Press explained last week, are among 19 types of military-style assault weapons previously outlawed in the United States. No longer am I limited by law to 10 rounds — 10 shots at it worries me what — and I’m also allowed to own a firearm that has a bayonet mount.

Lie number two. The weapons were never outlawed, just prevented from manufacture. The ban also did not affect military-style assault weapons. The ban only impacted semi-automatic guns (one shot per pull of the trigger) that looked like military-style assault weapons.

Let Gary Brown know he’s full of it.

The push for renewal is upon us.

Drug War rant gives some good advice: Know your rights. He also gives you resources to determine what those rights are.

I’ll repeat my advice on this issue from a while back: Keep your mouth shut.

From this:

I have seen more inaccurate stories about the 1994 “ban,” both before it was enacted and now that it has met its well-deserved demise, than any other such issue in recent memory. Most of the inaccuracies seem to stem from a general lack of understanding about the ban and firearms in general. Before the 1994 ban, the term “semi-automatic assault weapon” had previously been used only as a slang term by gun control advocates to describe any weapon they simply didn’t like the looks of. Such a definition only became an “official class” of firearms after the ban was adopted in 1994.

This article discusses Kerry’s attempt at courting both sides of the gun issue:

Democrats in West Virginia know that many of their state’s voters guard their gun rights jealously, and that their fear in 2000 that Al Gore was out to take their weapons — stoked by Republicans and the National Rifle Association — helped seal the former vice president’s defeat.

Then later in the same piece:

Last week in Washington, Kerry attacked President Bush for failing to push for an extension of the federal assault-weapons ban, a measure that gun rights groups have fiercely opposed. The Massachusetts Democrat had rarely mentioned his support for gun control laws until the ban was about to lapse, aware that many members of his own party who represent rural areas oppose such restrictions.

Kerry has worked aggressively to stake out a centrist position on the gun issue. He has been outspoken about his own experience with guns — going pheasant hunting with a local sheriff in Iowa last year, forming a group in April called Sportsmen for Kerry, and putting forth a “Sportsman’s Bill of Rights.” That list includes support for gun rights, easier access to hunting areas, and environmental measures to preserve wildlife.

I don’t find it odd that centrists favor gun control because most people don’t know what current gun laws are. For example, they think the assault weapons ban affected machine guns when it doesn’t. The article shows Kerry’s attempt to walk the line on gun control, which, for the most part, pro-gun folks aren’t going to buy. After all, anti-gunners claim their views are moderate. Meanwhile, this article asks if Kerry has just given up on appealing to gun folk:

Why on earth would John Kerry make his inaccurate, indeed, nonsensical comments about the ”consquences” of the expiration of the ”assault weapons” ban and President Bush’s decision to let it expire? Perhaps he has simply given up on trying to convince those who believe in our constitutional right to own fireams that he is one of them. That’s the opinion of Kimberley A. Strassel, writing in The Wall Street Journal (sic).

Strassel says that no one has worked harder than Kerry to neutralize the gun issue, which worked against Democrats in the last election. But no one seems to be buying his act–that he supports gun rights, identifies with hunters, and is not your typical liberal, who thinks (or, perhaps, feels is the better word) that gun ownership automatically makes someone an irrational, rednecked, and about-to-run-berserk and shoot-up the neighborhood post office.

Also, a gun law expert examining the Kerry shotgun kerfuffle concludes:

. . . accepting a gift shotgun from a private party out of his home state would be a five-year federal felony for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for President [see United States Code, section 922(a)(9)]. Giving him the gun would also be a felony [922(a)(5)].

Additionally, the Kerry campaign reports that Kerry returned the shotgun to the person who bought it (even though no one seems to be able to say where the shotgun currently is). No crime, just insincere political pandering.

First, the good. There is some reform in eminent domain law in New York:

Nearly four years after a Port Chester property owner went to court to challenge New York state’s rules for taking private property, Gov. George Pataki has signed a law reforming condemnation procedures.

The new law means property owners in New York no longer need to pore over tiny legal notices, searching for clues of government plans to take their land; governments will need to notify each property owner by certified mail or personal delivery.

The eminent domain law reform was signed Tuesday by the governor and was announced by his office yesterday.

It grew out of a battle by Bill Brody, a 42-year-old businessman from Rye, to hold onto four sites in Port Chester’s downtown redevelopment area.

“I’m very glad that the governor agreed with what I have been saying all along and that the state is going in the right direction,” he said yesterday in front his building-supply business in the Bronx.

Brody said he never saw the condemnation plan announcement in a July 1999 legal notice, which neither named him nor identified his Port Chester property by address. Because of that, Brody said, he failed to challenge the condemnation in the 30-day period allowed.

Now, the bad. This article equates eminent domain with despotism:

The U.S. Constitution, properly construed by a vigilant Supreme Court, prevents untrammeled power, which is the definition of despotism. But the human propensity for abusing power — a propensity the Constitution’s unsentimental framers understood and tried to shackle with prudent language — is perennial. There always are people trying to carve crevices in constitutional terminology to allow scope for despotism. Such carving is occurring in Connecticut.

Soon — perhaps on the first Monday in October — the court will announce whether it will hear an appeal against a 4 to 3 ruling last March by Connecticut’s Supreme Court. That ruling effectively repeals a crucial portion of the Bill of Rights. If you think the term “despotism” exaggerates what this repeal permits, consider the life-shattering power wielded by the government of New London, Conn.

That city, like many cities, needs more revenue. To enhance the Pfizer pharmaceutical company’s $270 million research facility, it empowered a private entity, the New London Development Corp., to exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn most of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood along the Thames River. The aim is to make space for expensive condominiums, a luxury hotel and private offices that would yield the city more tax revenue than can be extracted from the neighborhood’s middle-class homeowners.

Given the Supreme Court’s recent travesties, I’m not particularly hopeful or encouraged by the fact they may visit the issue. They could surprise me, though.

Per this:

California authorities worry more powerful firearms will eventually make their way into the state — despite the state’s outlaw on a large number of assault weapons.

The state’s ban remains active after a federal ban on 19 types of assault weapons expired this week.

But with a thriving underworld gun trade and with the weapons legally available for residents of nearby states, officials predict it won’t be long before the powerful firearms end up on California streets.

The ban doesn’t impact weapons that are more powerful. I don’t understand why Californians are shocked to learn that criminals may break the law.

A sort of dorky solution to the almost non-existent problem of crimes committed with assault weapons:

I am a pro-gun conservative, yet agree that assault weapons are designed for one purpose and, because of that, do not belong in everyone’s hands.

In keeping our choices free, while keeping the public safe, we need another option. Let’s make the punishment fit the crime. A handgun crime gives an automatic 10 years. Let’s make it 20 years for an assault weapon.

Even pro-gun conservatives don’t understand the ban and its impact.

More on that evil gun lobby:

On Sept. 13, the Republicans chose to allow the assault weapon ban to expire. Once again the Republicans chose their powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and the families they promised to protect. The Republicans made the wrong choice.

We now have an administration that makes the choice to take cops off the streets with one hand, while putting assault weapons back on the streets with the other.

Ten years ago a tough crime bill was passed to protect America. They made sure that criminals couldn’t get their hands on assault weapons. There were record drops in violent crime all over America, including gang violence and school-related murders. We saw assault weapon-related crimes drop 65 percent.

So many asinine statements in the last paragraph. Criminals could still get their hands on assault weapons and the ban has been shown to have no effect on crime according to the NIJ and the CDC.

It also looks as though a few news sources are addressing the fact the ban doesn’t do what people think it does. This article says:

A 10-year-old ban on assault weapons expired last week with barely any effect on people in central Wisconsin, gun salesman say.

The public has the wrong perception of what the ban meant, said Paul Miller, manager of Bull’s Eye Sports in Marshfield. Many people think they can walk into a gun shop now and see machine guns for sale, but that’s not the case, he said.

The federal ban halted the production of high-capacity magazines for weapons. The magazines hold 70 to 80 rounds of ammunition, instead of about 10, Miller said. Miller does expect the sale of the high-capacity magazines to increase in the next few weeks.

Steve Neve, owner of Steve’s Sport Shop in Wisconsin Rapids, said he received calls about assault weapons last week.

“We actually got a lot of calls from collectors who want to get them before the ban is reinstated,” Neve said.
Assault weapons or magazines manufactured before the ban went into effect could still be sold, Miller said. However, people have been getting higher prices for them than when they could be manufactured. Assault weapons similar to the banned ones were still being manufactured.

I’ve seen quite a few articles doing this lately. I find it odd that it’s after the ban that the press is picking up on it. Here’s another:

The ban merely redefined “assault weapons” as those semi-automatic firearms with certain military-style features resembling fully automatic machine guns. Only looks were prohibited. A grandfather clause even exempted firearms manufactured prior to the 1994 date. The ban simply regulated their appearance in future manufacturing and did nothing to stop the drug dealers and gang bangers from using their illegal assault weapons in the streets — as opponents of the ban accurately predicted.

The fact is that all semi-automatic firearms use the same technology that’s been around since the 19th century, when the first such mechanisms were designed. The forces of expanding gases from a fired cartridge cycle the action and load the next bullet to be fired. Because of this action, “semi-autos” also are called several names such as gas-operated, self-loaders, autoloaders or just plain automatics for short. The trigger has to be pulled each time a shot is fired.

It is quite sad that you have to explain to people what the ban really does because they can’t get that info in the mainstream press.

Jason details a teacher who was arrested for having a dangerous bookmark at the airport. Stuff like this and taking tweezers from people is a major annoyance that will not stop terror attacks.

The Geek reminds of that at least one gun manufacturer has the stones to stand up to the gun banners. Seems to me that’s the kind of company that deserves my business.

Unfortunately, I don’t have anywhere to shoot a .50 caliber rifle. Not only that, they’re expensive. Barret does sell an Evil “Assault-Style” Rifle in 6.8mm Remington SPC, but it’s $2,500.

Sheesh. I’m sure it’s a quality rifle, but I just can’t see spending that kind of dough.

Per this:

With the assault weapons ban having expired last week, Hastert said he would move a bill to reinstate the ban only if it passed in the Senate first, and he claimed not to know whether his constituents in the 14th Congressional district would like to see the ban continued.

A push is coming. And the House is the only place it can be defeated. Start calling Hastert.

I received and responded to what I’m pretty certain will be the last correspondence I ever get from Tearsa Smith (you can read about our past adventures regarding some misleading statements she made about what was banned by the assault weapons ban here). It seems she, instead of actually dealing with the issue I raised, would ra^ther change the debate to whether or not is appropriate that I post emails on the WATE Message Board and how the joke a particular commenter here made was mean. And she finally concludes with what a pain in the ass I am when I should be grateful that she took the time to talk to me. She writes:

Dear SAYUNCLE,

Let’s just call this a truce.. I made a wrong judgement (sic) call when I took five minutes out of my hectic work day to answer a viewer’s concern. Yours. It is something I do all the time, especially viewers that challenge my
work. As a reporter I feel you can’t “hide” behind the camera. You are accountable to your viewers. I respect that and I honestly did some searching and still stood by what I reported. I was sensitive to what you
were saying.. that’s why I emailed you again to get your opinion on what you would have categorized the weapons as. Just to keep in mind for my next story. However, with all that said – it wasn’t worth. Between the Sound Off board and your blog website– I guess I am just the bad guy no matter what I say.

One of your blog readers even had the nerve to talk about my name being a mistake? A bit mean and unnecessary, but oh well you can’t control what they say. As for me paying “attention to detail” about your name.. that was human error, which I apologized for. I guess that wasn’t good enough either.. But like I said I was carving out a few minutes to answer your concerns. I understand now why some reporters/ anchors don’t address emails at all..

I responded with:

Truce? I never declared war. It was not a wrong judgment to return a legitimate inquiry for clarification. I am glad you are approachable. I write plenty of reporters and editors and probably get a response one out of five times on a good week. It is commendable that you respond to challenges and something you should keep up.

In terms of the issue, you shouldn’t have had to have done any searching. I gave you a link to the United States Code Annotated that addresses what a “semi-automatic assault weapon” is. And, you’ll note, it doesn’t cover “military assault weapons,” which are machine guns. You were wrong. Period.

And I don’t know why you want to change the issue to me posting emails or what a reader comments on my site. It is irrelevant to my concern. Do you want an apology? If so, then I apologize for posting your email. I was unaware you considered those emails private. And you should know that I’ll probably post this one on my site. You have an outlet to report on TV and I have my little web page. My comments section allows anyone to refute what I say. Additionally, WATE has a message board in the event I want to comment on a news story. And I did. Apologies if you took offense to a joke about your name but I don’t delete comments as a general rule unless they are spam.

And I appreciate you carving out a few minutes to answer my concerns. I really do, though you may not believe it.

But, the fact is, your report misled people with respect to what the assault weapons ban covered. This is a pattern in most media outlets which explains the popular support of the ban. However, I have found that when I explain what the ban actually does, most folks change their mind. Too bad you choose to cling to your misleading statement that the ban covered machine guns.

Regards,

I think Ms. Smith needs to toughen up a bit. She seems to be confusing my attack on her assertion with an attack on her. She shouldn’t feel too bad as I had one report on WATE changed already though no correction was issued and the more serious misrepresentation was ignored. She doesn’t understand (or won’t admit) that she made a wrong judgement by referring to the weapons banned by the assault weapons ban as “military assault weapons.”

Blogrolling is down which is slowing my site load. I have removed some blogrolls until Blogrolling comes back up.

Kevin T. Keith has a post that is worth reading fears of inhumane executions. He addresses, in some detail, that persons executed may have suffered, which to me is not that important an issue. I don’t take much sympathy on mass murderers, rapists, and other hooligans. It does paint a picture of some of the process involved. However, I do oppose the death penalty for reason outlined here. Brief summary:

It’s expensive to kill people and keep them on death row for decades.

It is used an disproportionate amount against minorities, which is code for it is used on poor people more than rich people.

It’s not a make or break issue for me.

Clarksville police raid the wrong house and issue an apology. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

Peter Jennings is either a liar or cannot do research when he asserts Rep. McCarthy’s husband was killed by an assault weapon. The shooter used a handgun.

Pro gun politicos are attaching the DC gun ban repeal to the budget:

A move to repeal virtually all the District’s gun restrictions has received a boost in the Senate, where gun rights supporters led by Idaho Republican Sen. Larry E. Craig are seeking to get the measure passed as an amendment to the city’s 2005 budget.

If the effort were to succeed, it would markedly increase the chances of the repeal passing Congress this fall. A similar measure in the House has more than enough co-sponsors to pass that chamber and has been promised a floor vote this fall by GOP House leaders.

Calling them gun restrictions is a bit of a stretch. DC has what is essentially an outright ban.

At least someone is addressing what the ban really does.

The Herald and News says the ban sunset is drawing little attention. Perhaps locally it may be but the major press is all fucking over it with over 3,000 news items. The media push to re-enact the ban is upon us.

Kerry keeps doing it to himself. He sponsors the Assault Weapons ban renewal and he may have admitted he has an “assault rifle.” CNS News:

“Responding to a question from Outdoor Life about whether he is a gun owner, and if so, what’s his favorite gun, Kerry strongly intimates he has an assault rifle, which is illegal to own both in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.”

The Kerry quote appears on Page 82 of the October issue of Outdoor Life. He told the magazine, “My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don’t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.”

So, Senator, what kind of rifle is it? Do you actually own it? Is it registered and legal? And you are aware that Mass. and DC have restrictions on such weapons?

Where is the rifle?

Oh, those weapons of mass destruction related program activities.

Wow. Two blog memes in one post.

Indeed.

We report, you decide.

Via Jeffy Weffy, comes this:

A day after a federal ban on assault weapons expired, an unknown gunman sprayed 10 rounds from a rifle into the second-floor windows of the Sheriff’s Department Headquarters.

I wonder how many times unrelated shootings will be tied to the ban? California has a ban that was more strict than the federal ban and, gasp!, it still happened.

Quick blood in the street check: Ain’t seen nary a drop.

Perry de Havilland has issued a call to arms:

And so I urge all the redoubtable gun owning men and women of the USA to run, not walk, to their nearest gun shop and purchase nice Kalashnikov or AR-15 or Ruger Mini-14 or FAL or M-14 or whatever, plus a goodly selection of flash suppressors and high capacity magazines, thus ensuring that there are soooooo many of the damn things in circulation that any future ban will simply have no effect.

Use the power of the Buycott, have fun at the range, arm yourself to the teeth and, best of all, absolutely enrage advocates of gun control in the process.

The ban going into effect caused a huge supply of semi-automatics. The sunset of it will do the same. And there’s a gun show next weekend. I’ll be there.

Well, sort of solid. Last night, Junior got her first taste of solid food. By solid, I mean one part rice cereal to five parts formula. As I said, sort of solid. More like liquid with the occasional chunk in it. The Mrs. was feeding her while I was videotaping the momentous occasion. The first bite, Junior looked quite confused. She moved her mouth a bit, realized it was OK and swallowed. Then, she grinned from ear to ear. She was obviously happy to discover that there is more than one type of food on the planet (she had only had formula for the last 13 weeks).

Me and the wife then switched (I got to feed while she taped it). Whereas she ordinarily eats between four and six ounces of formula, she only had about eight bites of cereal then washed it down with a sip or two of formula. Not much in terms of volume but I guess the different consistency filled her up.

A good time was had by all. Now, we’re counting down two more weeks until the introduction of baby food. We’ll be changing the consistency of the formula/cereal mixture between now and then to increase the food’s solidity.

Someone figured out that it is more important for legislators to appear to be doing something than actually doing something:

Did the assault ban stop Columbine?

Think again.

Of course, the madness at Columbine spurred new rounds of legislation at the state and national level, and that, truly, is why the assault ban is such a good example of legislation gone wrong. After Columbine, the Colorado legislature passed four gun-control measures. None of them, even supporters agreed, would have stopped the horrendous school killings, but they would have added to consequences for those who did the deed.

You can’t get much more consequential than death, but hey, at least the legislature did something.

And that, I suppose, is the lesson of the assault weapon ban.

It made us feel better.

You don’t say?

WATE writes:

The Knox County Sheriff’s Office says Wednesday that Deputy Melissa Bush, 28, won’t be cited for running a red light when she crashed her cruiser into a car Tuesday morning.

She wasn’t responding to a call. She just ran the red light, which she would have ticketed someone else for doing.

My little tussle with the charming Ms. Smith (seriously, she really is nice), that I mentioned here, about her misrepresenting the assault weapons ban is taking place over on the WATE message board. She is upset because I published what she calls our private emails.

She still hasn’t retracted the statement. Go figure.

Murdoch has the latest. I just want to know if there will be a civilian model.

Jason spots the differences between the anti-Bush and anti-Kerry books at Amazon.

SayUncle, master of cryptography, uncovered a secret message in the CBS statement:

^We estab^lish^ed to ^our s^ati^sfaction that the memo^s were accurate ^or we would not have put them on television. There was a great deal o^f coroborating [sic] evidence ^from people in a position to know.