Dunno how many of you use Yahoo mail, but I kept seeing this Hardee’s ad in the mail screen. It featured a chick on mechanical bull with a burger. Every time the mouse went over it, she’d move. Anyway, I clicked the link after seeing it for three days and it takes you here. It seems to me to have some pornographic overtones. She’s riding a mechanical bull and opening her mouth wide for a burger. And it says Hit play to watch me work it. I dunno about music since this machine lacks speakers.

I just thought it was weird that Hardee’s would use porn overtones to sell a burger.

I’m not quite sure how laws and such work in Puerto Rico, but I found this article on the assault weapons ban as it relates to Puerto Rico interesting (it sounds like they are trying to pass a local ban):

Despite the fact that the period in which to renew the ban has ended, the Senate approved a resolution in favor of keeping in place the Assault Weapons Ban.

New Progressive Sen. Norma Burgos was the only member of her party’s delegation to vote in favor of the proposal filed by Popular legislator Jose Ortiz Daliot, a newspaper reported Friday.

More interesting to me was this:

The possibility of extending the ban, approved by Bill Clinton in 1994 for a 10-year term, generated controversy when it was revealed that the New Progressive mayor of San Juan, Jorge Santini, supported its repeal and possessed at least 20 of the large weapons.

Armed progressives! I love it.

So, today’s news consists of:

Job numbers for September didn’t meet expectations. If you watched the debates, people (namely presidential candidates) apparently think the president can create jobs other than by hiring people, which is pretty much not the case in my opinion.

Largest dollar value deficit in history. People seem to think this affects something or another. Being a child in the 1980s, I’m still waiting for the bill to pay those back, which hasn’t come yet.

The US has reached its credit limit. Though somewhat related to the deficit, US debt has a market. People buy our bonds no matter what our deficit is. In fact, the debt even increased during our accounting trick err surplus years.

So, what happened to the party of fiscal responsibility?

Countertop was born in 1971. So was the Closet Extremist. Me too. Countertop is apparently exactly two weeks older than me.

Via Ricky, we learn that Kerry is really in trouble. He’s running at 50% . . . in Massachusetts.

I tend to think terrorism is terrorism, whether it comes from a skinhead bastard or a fanatical Muslim bastard, so I found the reference to domestic terrorism odd. Maybe we should just call it general bastardness. Regardless, a local guy was going to try to blow up the local guard armory and a synagogue:

FBI Agents arrested 20 year old Ivan Duane Braden of Knoxville Thursday after they say he planned to blow up the National Guard Armory in Lenoir City, and kill a Sergeant Major. He planned to do this Friday.

Agents say he also threatened to blow up a synagogue, wanting to get close to a rabbi and children.

A search of his house and car turned up pipe bombs, knives, Neo-Nazi literature and plans for a suicide vest to put bombs in.

They say Braden told a mental facility counselor and a Knox County sheriff’s deputy he had bombs and planned to kill.

Scary stuff. These are the guys I worry about more than the Muslim variety. After all, how much of the government’s resources are going after white terrorists compared to the olive skinned kind?

to justify shooting a dog on a leash, but Hendersonville police are claiming it was justifiable.

Watch the video, decide for yourself.

A Fraternal Order of Police press release tells Kerry to stop misrepresenting their support:

Today Chuck Canterbury, the President of the nation’s largest police labor organization, called on John Kerry to stop making misleading statements regarding his support from the law enforcement community. Both on the campaign trail and in Wednesday night’s debate in Tempe, AZ, Senator Kerry has alluded that he has the support of the majority of these brave men and women.

“As the elected leader of the largest organization representing America’s Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, I believe it’s important to point out yet again that we do not support his candidacy for President,” Canterbury said. “And to be perfectly frank, the groups which do support him actually share the same membership rolls and, taken together, probably comprise less than one-quarter of our nation’s police officers.”

I have been a member and supported (through donations) the FOP. The FOP will never get another dime from me because of its support for the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban:

Canterbury also said it was the height of irony that Kerry would use his position on the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban as a reflection of his support from police.

“First, if a police officer is killed by an AK-47, Kerry would oppose the death penalty for the killer,” Canterbury said. “In addition, where was he when this issue was being discussed in the 108th Congress? Where was he when we were working to pass H.R. 218? When it came time to help push for final passage of legislation important to law enforcement, Senator Kerry was regrettably A.W.O.L.”

Even the president of the FOP, a man who should know about guns, thinks the ban applies to AK47s. The campaign of lies and misrepresentation of what the assault weapons ban did reaches pretty far. For that, they will never get a dime from me again. The FOP closes with a statement of support for Bush:

“Given the facts, I would greatly appreciate it if Senator Kerry would refrain from making similar whimsical assertions regarding his support from the law enforcement community,” Canterbury said. “The real majority of my fellow officers are standing behind President Bush, because he has been there for us.”

A good read on eminent domain abuse and the pending Supreme Court Case:

When the Supreme Court announced in September that it would hear Kelo v. City of New London, it sent ripples through state and local governments everywhere. At issue in the Connecticut case is whether the city can exercise its right of eminent domain – the constitutionally based power to take private land for “public use” in exchange for “just compensation” – not for historical purposes such as a highway or flood control, but to bring in more tax revenue through private development.

The Court has decided a handful of related cases throughout its history, but it has always expressed doubts that a judicial rule-of-thumb can be applied to a process that is grounded in so many local variables, including a community’s economic needs and real estate prices. Its position has essentially been that the local governing entities are in the best position to decide those questions.

Despite its remove from direct electoral politics, the Court is not insensitive to the winds of change, and its willingness to take on Kelo v. City of New London reflects two trends: perceived abuse by governmental entities that have used the power to take private land for private development, and a conservative campaign to roll back eminent domain to the bare minimum by making the purchase costs too burdensome for local governments.

I’m don’t have much faith in the court to do the right thing but they may surprise me.

I am remiss in heralding the returns of Phelpsie Whelpsie and Manish. About time, fellas.

The Geek alerts us to the fact the FEC may try to regulate web political activity:

With political fund raising, campaign advertising and organizing taking place in full swing over the Internet, it may just be a matter of time before the Federal Election Commission joins the action. Well, that time may be now.

A recent federal court ruling says the FEC must extend some of the nation’s new campaign finance and spending limits to political activity on the Internet.

Long reluctant to step into online political activity, the agency is considering whether to appeal.

But vice chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said the Internet may prove to be an unavoidable area for the six-member commission, regardless of what happens with the ruling.

“I don’t think anybody here wants to impede the free flow of information over the Internet,” Weintraub said. “The question then is, where do you draw the line?”

I think you’d draw the line at the first amendment but obviously our court system and politicos disagree. And if anyone thinks for one minute blogs and other online resources will stop rambling about politicians because of this stupid law, they’re wrong.

From CNN’s debate blog:

Novak: Bush looks wishy washy on the assault-weapons ban.

Begala: Kerry is hammering Bush for wimping out to the gun lobby on extending the assault weapon ban. Gun control is a tough issue for Democrats, but Kerry isn’t backing down an inch. He’s showing a lot more guts than Bush is.

By the way, just when has Bush ever stood up to a corporate lobby? Even once? When corporate lobbyists say jump, Bush is in the air before he can ask, “How high?” Kerry has taken positions at odds with labor, trial lawyers and other key Democratic constituencies. When will Bush ever stand up to his corporate patrons? He seems to believe in corporate infallibility.

What does the gun lobby have to do with corporate lobbyists?

Apparently, the gambling industry called the third debate for Bush early. Now, there’s a Kerry push. There is speculation about gaming the market.

Update: Meanwhile, Rick calls the debate for bullshit.

Update 2: Meanwhile, the gang at Leanleft calls it for Kerry, which probably means Bush won.

Les, who has been negligently remiss in posting his weekly gun links, asks:

On one of the gun boards I read there was a recent thread that I keep thinking about. Basically, the guy had seen a lot of people carping about bad gun laws. OK, he said, which gun laws would you want on the books?

Simple: It’s illegal to shoot people.

Seriously, that one is tough and I’d frame my response in terms of what current laws do and I want to be rid of. Honestly, I’d need a context to start from. I’d also stipulate that this applies only to federal laws. Currently, I would want the 1986 Hughes amendment (ban on new machine guns) repealed and the $200 tax for NFA weapons repealed.

I would also like to see the transfer portion of the 1968 GCA, which specifies all transactions have to go through an in-state dealer, done away with. It’s a global economy and I should be able to buy across state lines without having to factor in transfer fees in addition to shipping.

I don’t oppose registration, except to the extent it can be used to confiscate weapons. Also, I don’t oppose background checks and I don’t oppose restricting the rights of those convicted of violent crime.

Sean Sachdev, who is apparently either an idiot or a liar, writes:

The recent repeal of the assault weapon is the one of the most illogical, unreasonable and undemocratic actions undertaken by our federal government,

The ban wasn’t repealed. It had a sunset clause because without that clause it never would have passed. The effects of the ban were to be studied to determine if it affected crime. It was shown to have no impact on crime.

Under the ban, military style automatic weapons could no longer be imported or sold on the streets of our nation.

The ban did not affect military style automatic weapons it affected semi-automatic weapons that looked like military style automatic weapons but were identical in function to most hunting rifles. The rest of the article is hysteria based on this lie.

And, unsurprisingly, the Brady Campaign has let loose with some new lies and blames Bush for the ban’s sunset.

I didn’t watch it. Jason did. Finally, they address gun control in a debate:

You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you’d sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?

BUSH: Actually, I made my intentions — made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties.

I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get in the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.

But the best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. And that’s why early in my administration I called the attorney general and the U.S. attorneys and said: Put together a task force all around the country to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. And the prosecutions are up by about 68 percent — I believe — is the number.

Neighborhoods are safer when we crack down on people who commit crimes with guns.

To me, that’s the best way to secure America.

SCHIEFFER: Senator?

KERRY: I believe it was a failure of presidential leadership not to reauthorize the assault weapons ban.

I am a hunter. I’m a gun owner. I’ve been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment.

But I’ll tell you this. I’m also a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney’s offices in America, one of the ten largest. I put people behind bars for the rest of their life. I’ve broken up organized crime. I know something about prosecuting.

And most of the law enforcement agencies in America wanted that assault weapons ban. They don’t want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47.

I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, “See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him.”

Because of the president’s decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and, without even a background check, buy an assault weapon today.

And that’s what Osama bin Laden’s handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan. It encouraged them to do it.

So I believe America’s less safe.

If Tom DeLay or someone in the House said to me, “Sorry, we don’t have the votes,” I’d have said, “Then we’re going to have a fight.”

And I’d have taken it out to the country and I’d have had every law enforcement officer in the country visit those congressmen. We’d have won what Bill Clinton won.

Wow. Bush is against the right of citizens to engage in lawful commerce err the gun show loophole. And Kerry repeating the tired old lies about AK47s and terrorism. Seems to me, Senator, that would be tampering with the second amendment.

Via Two–Four, we find this…this…I don’t know what to call it.

a $40,000 ceramic mural was unveiled outside the city’s new library and everyone could see the misspelled names of Einstein, Shakespeare, Vincent Van Gogh, Michelangelo and seven other historical figures.

For example, “Einstein” is spelled “Eistein.” Of course, the artist has an excuse:

The mistakes wouldn’t even register with a true artisan, Alquilar said.

“The people that are into humanities, and are into Blake’s concept of enlightenment, they are not looking at the words,” she said. “In their mind the words register correctly.”

Of course, I have no room to talk. I’m a computer programmer; we call our mistakes “bugs” because nobody can admit to making as many mistakes as we do.

Oh yeah: bonus points if you remember where I got the title for this post.

The NRA’s de facto endorsement of Bush is over, and by that I mean the fact the NRA was merely explicitly anti-Kerry not necessarily pro-Bush. The NRA has now endorsed Dubya, despite his rather quiet (almost non-existent in that it was probably an empty campaign promise to soccer moms) support of the assault weapons ban.

James has posted some good stuff over at the Shooters’ Carnival on buying military surplus rifles for cheap ($44!).

Also, via James, comes everything you ever wanted to know about the SKS.

Al Doyle, who unfortunately starts off donning his full-fledged looneytarian* hat by referring to Bush as a fascist and Kerry as a socialist, advises that this election will raise ammo prices. He says the effect of a Kerry win will have an immediate impact on ammo prices and a Bush victory will have a slow impact. He says to stock up, which is never a bad idea.

I went to AmmoMan a couple days ago and ordered 1,000 rounds of 7.62X39 for about $100, delivered to my door.

* Stealing from this quote by XRLQ, I figure the Looneytarians are the way out there Libertarians whose, no offense to you, ideals will never work and, frankly, will never be popular. I like libertarianism (small L kind) but at the end of the day there is a country to run. Dismantling education, all taxes, and every government program ever won’t work. I’d like the government to be smaller and for there to be far fewer laws, but I do want the government to continue to exist.

SayUncle: Libertarian with half the crazy.

The ban has passed its first reading by 3 -2:

There was a huge crowd in the Council Bluffs City Council chambers Monday night that spilled out into the hallways. Most of them went home disappointed.

The council, on a 3-2 vote, approved the first reading of an ordinance that would ban pit bulls from the city.

Council members Chad Primmer, Dave Tobias and Lynne Branigan supported the ordinance, while Scott Belt and Matt Walsh voted against it.

Walsh called the proposed ordinance a “tragic mistake.”

“We’ll keep fighting,” said ban opponent Sharon Rivera after the vote. “I’m not getting rid of my dog.”

Charlotte Skokan, a leading spokesperson against the ban, added, “There’s three people who aren’t hearing us. (The ban’s) not going to stop dogs from biting.”

The proposed ordinance would make it “unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport or sell within the city of Council Bluffs any pit bull.”

It defines “pit bull” as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of those breeds.

Displaying a majority of the physical traits is the criteria? What about this pit bull?

The Libertarian candidate for President, who stated he’d debate or be arrested, was (no surprise) arrested. The Libertarians are now suing because:

On Tuesday, the Superior Court of Maricopa County will decide whether or not taxpayer money can be used to present campaign commercials for favored political parties and their candidates.

He won’t win but I admire the sentiment.

Today’s must read. And more here.

Why, that’s just crazy talk and has no place in politics:

There is a glaring omission from the issues addressed in not only the presidential debates, but the debates and campaign literature of almost every candidate for public office in the United States. It is also missing from media coverage, polling, debates on the floor of Congress, and most public discussion.

That issue is constitutional compliance.

Once in a while someone who doesn’t like some policy or official act will call it “unconstitutional”, but usually without much explanation of why it might be unconstitutional. Too often it is just a special pleading that is dismissed as such.

Determining what is and is not constitutional is not just a duty of lawyers and judges. It is a duty of every citizen, in the way he or she lives and works, and in the ways he or she votes. Corruption begins with every voter who votes his pocketbook instead of for what’s good for the country in the long term.

President Bush promised to nominate only “strict constructionists” to the federal bench, but do his nominees qualify? Or are they just conservatives whose copies of the Bill of Rights are missing the First and Ninth Amendments? On the other side, many of his nominees have been blocked by Democrats who claim they are trying to protect Roe v. Wade, but who privately seem more concerned that much of the legislation and spending programs favored by their constituents might be stuck down as unconstitutional by true strict constructionists. Their copies of the Bill of Rights seem to be missing the Second and Tenth Amendments.

The headline reads Pit bull victim’s family crusades for stiffer penalties. Great, sign me up. I’m all for expanding criminal charges against the owners of dogs that attack and kill people. However, that’s not what victim’s family is doing:

Linda Collinsworth refuses to let her 2-year-old granddaughter die in vain. Although she and her family are still dealing with the horror and grief they have suffered since the little girl was killed by her babysitter’s pit bull last year, they are determined to move ahead with their plan to have pit bulls banned in California. At the very least, they want penalties toughened on owners who allow their dogs to harm or kill others.

“This is going to be Somer’s Law. It’s going to happen,” Collinsworth said. “I’m not going to stop. No other child or family should ever have to suffer this horrible tragedy ever again.”

Uhm, that’s not a stiffer penalty, that is a breed specific legislation. It is an ineffective means of dealing with the problem at hand, which is irresponsible dog owners. Why the push?

Somer and her brother Matt, now 2, were dropped off at the home of temporary babysitter Jackie Batey in Good Hope on the morning of June 20, 2003, so that father Jason, 28, could continue on to his job in Hemet.

It was the last day Batey would be needed, because the family’s support network, which normally looked after the children, would be back in place after a few logistical and health problems had been resolved, Collinsworth said.

The babysitter decided to run errands at about 7:15 a.m., leaving Somer alone in front of the television while everyone else in the house slept. Some time later, Batey’s 11-year-old son was making breakfast in the kitchen when he looked out the window and saw the family’s pit bull playing with what he thought was a doll. It was only later, when the boy was taking trash outside, that he saw it was Somer. He tried to kick the dog off her and then ran inside to wake his father, who called 911.

So, the child was left unattended with a dog? Someone should have gone to jail, and did:

Batey faced criminal charges of involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment. Under a plea bargain, she pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter on Dec. 5, 2003 and was sentenced to one year in jail.

He was released from jail early and they are pushing for a law that would automatically charge someone with murder if their dog kills someone. Murder may be a stretch, unless the dog is encouraged to attack. Criminal negligence is probably more reasonable. And if that doesn’t work, they will push for a breed ban in all of California. As I understand it, breed bans are illegal in California. Closing quote:

“These dogs are not normal,” Collinsworth said. “You can have them for years and they can turn and maul a child.”

If a person insists on having a pit bull, then he or she should have $100,000 liability insurance and be required to attend classes to educate the owner about the dog. The dog should also be registered.

“Pit bulls are the equivalent of a loaded gun,” Collinsworth said.

These dogs are quite normal. And, like any normal dog, if they’re not socialized they can become aggressive. No one to blame here but pet owners. Additionally, loaded guns don’t attack people no matter how badly you socialize them.

An article that asks the question: Will Lapse of the Assault Weapons Ban Lead to More Columbines? It makes many of the same points I have made about the ineffectiveness of the assault weapons ban. However, it should be pointed out that Columbine occurred in 1999, while the ban was in effect.

This article, unlike others, actually tells us what the tax bill does. Of special note:

Residents of states without income taxes will be allowed to deduct state and local sales taxes from their federal income returns. This will primarily benefit people in Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, all of which have a state sales tax, and Alaska, which has local sales taxes but not a state sales tax. Cost: $5 billion for a deduction that would last until Dec. 31, 2005.

Start saving your receipts.

When not being grossed out by a particular type of porn he finds offensive yet won’t describe (I think it involves lots of guys, a girl and probably a tarp; or at least a lot of moist towelettes. – Ed.), Clayton Cramer talks about taxes:

Remember: an income tax isn’t a tax on rich people. It’s a tax on those trying to get rich.

Yup.

The NYT on the corporate tax bill:

The Senate today approved a bill handing out about $140 billion in corporate tax breaks.

So, taking less money from corporations is a handout? Why not just call it corporate welfare?

Additionally, why do we get at least four paragraphs about sausage being made and no substantive mention of, I don’t know, what the bill actually does? Probably because 633 pages is a lot to read.

A letter to Fosters:

. . .the assault weapons ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons (hold the trigger in and you get a continuous stream of bullets). It dealt only with semi-automatic weapons (one bullet for each pull of the trigger).

Automatic weapons are closely regulated. Anyone who wants to legally process one must apply for a permit. They must be fingerprinted and undergo a background investigation and pay a hefty fee. The assault weapons ban had nothing to do with this class of weapon.

Of course the media did it’s best to confuse this issue. Showing pictures of the notorious California bank robbery from the late 90s while discussing the ban. The problem was, the robbers wearing body armor were using automatic weapons which they were not licensed to process (and there is a shocker, criminals not obeying gun laws).

Jeff has his weekly check on the bias.

Another letter to the editor calls an editorial board out:

This is blatantly false, as fully automatic weapons were the first weapons to be made illegal, in the 1930s. If the ban is not passed again, you will not see people walking around with Uzis, AK-47s, M-16s, MP5s or any other similar weapon any more than you would have beforehand.

Those who lawfully own fully automatic weapons must submit to an extensive background check by the federal government, give up their rights against search and seizure by government agents and pay a hefty tax.

As for the “model of other nations,” I would like to see some statistics on that.

All of the statistics I have ever seen on the subject indicate that the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and many other Western nations, shortly after banning most firearms, had instances of violent crime (while still less than those, overall, of the United States) explode.

That is to say, instances of rape, assault, armed robbery and murder increased. According to an October 2000 article published in Reason magazine, instances of armed robbery in Australia alone jumped 73 percent between 1996 and 1998.

In Germany, between 1992 and 1995, firearms-related murders jumped 76 percent, according to a May 1998 study (which can be found in the Library of Congress) entitled “Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries.”

In Canada, instances of burglary have risen above that of the United States, while overall crime rates between similar Canadian and American cities have otherwise remained the same.

This article concludes with:

Both sides said the law was so easy to get around that it was nearly useless in the first place.

This is odd because the title of the article is:

Success of lapsed gun ban disputed

Of course, it also mentions Uzis and street sweepers, neither of which was affected by the ban.

In Nashville, a man was arrested for buying machine guns and grenades:

Federal authorities said Friday they arrested an Iraqi-born Nashville resident on illegal weapons charges during a sting operation set up after he made threats about “going Jihad.”

Ahmed Hassan Al-Uqaily, 33, was arrested Thursday afternoon as he was putting weapons he had purchased from an undercover agent into his car, according to an affidavit from FBI agent Greg Franklin.

Authorities said the suspect paid $1,000 to buy two disassembled machine guns, four disassembled hand grenades and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from the agent, who was working with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

So, how long before the Brady Campaign crows about the assault weapons ban and this incident?

On the pending SCOTUS case:

Whether local governments are appropriately taking privately owned property for economic development projects is at issue in a case accepted for review by the justices of the nation’s top court. The case will mark the first time the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on eminent domain law in 20 years.

The case specifically challenges plans by a Connecticut town to condemn privately owned property so a private developer can build a hotel, a conference center, office buildings, housing and parking.

Taken state by state, court rulings have produced a patchwork quilt of case law addressing eminent domain. Seven states allow condemnations for private development alone. Eight forbid the use of eminent domain when the purpose is not to eliminate blight. Three states are ambiguous. And 32, including North Carolina, have not addressed the issue.

I’m rather surprised that many states forbid the use of eminent domain except in cases of blight. I’d like to see more of that. Of course, I’m sure the blight designation has been abused as well. This article mentions a couple’s dealings with eminent domain. The author provides an interesting snippet:

But over a span of about 50 years, the courts have inexorably changed the generally accepted justification of “public use” into a broader concept of “public benefit,” a critical distinction that opened the way for local governments in fiscal crisis to condemn whole neighborhoods as “blighted” and turn them over to private, profit-seeking developers and corporations. The rationale is contained in a kind of trickle-down corollary that presumes the public would benefit from the jobs and tax revenue generated by the redevelopment. That was the thinking behind the gigantic IKEA project in New Rochelle’s City Park.

By any definition, eminent domain for private benefit is corporate welfare. And it continues to spread at an alarming rate across the land, here and in most states.

According to the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based group that has waged numerous legal battles against this abusive form of eminent domain, 1,000 properties were targeted for condemnation between 1998 and 2002, but those stark numbers hardly tell the story of the individual lives that are disrupted or ruined by the heavy-handed process.

Often times, even if you win the legal battle, the costs are still significantly high.

Kerry and Bush both said basically the same things they said last time. This time, however, Bush had his game face on. I’d call it a draw. Seems to me, they’re both the same except for that abortion thing.

I’m guessing he’ll be arrested:

Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party’s 2004 presidential nominee, will debate John Kerry and George W. Bush in St. Louis on Friday. Or he’ll go to jail instead.

“A majority of Americans say that I should be included in the events sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates,” says Badnarik, 50, of Austin, Texas. “And the CPD, as a non-profit, has received special treatment from government on the requirement that they be non-partisan in their activities. Bi-partisan is not non-partisan.

“Unless I am allowed to participate, the debates become a massive campaign contribution to two of the candidates, illegal under the very campaign finance laws those two candidates have passed and signed as Senator and President.”

At 8 p.m. on Friday evening, Badnarik, along with the demonstrators expected to assemble in protest against his exclusion, will proceed to the police line erected to keep himself and the other legitimate candidates out during broadcast of the “bi-partisan campaign commercial.”

And then he will cross it.

“We’d have preferred to see John Kerry and George Bush stand up like men to debate the issues facing America,” says Badnarik’s communications director, Stephen Gordon. “However, they have interposed the machinery of government between the American people and the honest debate which must precede any honest election. Now it’s up to patriots like Michael Badnarik to force the issue.” In Arizona, the Libertarian Party is taking the state university to court to prevent the expenditure of state money on a similar event.

Tonight is the town-hall style presidential debate, which will not be town hall style at all. The candidates know the questions in advance and if someone strays from their question, their mic will be cut. So, if you were there and could ask any question of either or both candidates, what would it be? One of mine is:

So, the drug war costs billions and billions and billions of dollars. Many innocent, peaceable citizens have been needlessly killed by a police force that has been essentially militarized. People are not secure in their homes because of no knock warrants and search warrants issued based on the frequently false testimony of criminals. Property is taken and lives are destroyed over a few minuscule amounts of drugs. Is it worth that price to confiscate an infinitesimally small fraction of a percent of the drug supply in this country?

Another would be:

You both support the assault weapons ban. Given that the ban was an essentially meaningless gesture that had no impact on crime, didn’t ban assault weapons, and merely banned rifles that looked like assault weapons, are you both just disingenuous or do both of you really have no idea what the ban did?

Yeah, it’s Friday. I don’t expect many responses as blog traffic tends to die here on Friday through Sunday.

Odd:

A psychiatrist who police say smeared excrement on dollar bills used to pay a parking ticket has been charged with harassment of a public official.

Ronald Preston McPike, 52, was arrested Sept. 30 at his office in Burlington.

He pleaded not guilty to the charge, a misdemeanor, and was released on $125 bond pending a Dec. 8 court appearance.

Officers received an envelope in July labeled “Foreign brown substance on bills.” The envelope contained several dollar bills and a parking ticket made out to a vehicle registered to McPike, police said.

Tests indicated the brown substance was fecal matter and indicated that the stain patterns resulted from the matter being smeared on the bills.

“All personnel that dealt with the bills were offended by what the defendant did,” an affidavit said.

Alrighty, then.

When you get your anti-gun hysteria about the assault weapons ban and the DC gun ban confused, you come up with sentences like:

The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, which negates the gun ban that former president Bill Clinton put into place, was voted with approval with a 250-171 vote in the House of Representatives, with 52 democrats supporting the passage.

Sorry Ms. Regina Castro, but the DC gun ban was signed into law in 1976.

However, she does get this bit right:

Under the D.C. Personal Protection Act, any weapon that is not prohibited by federal law is available for purchase in D.C.

Most reports yammer on about assault weapons. Good for her for pointing out that the law would make DC like almost every state.

Wow! These places with all these gun bans aren’t quite living up to the dream. First, Massachusetts gets a bad rank for prosecuting gun crimes, and now Illinois:

Federal prosecutors in Chicago insist they’re making headway against gun traffickers, despite a report released Wednesday that claims the government is lax in enforcing the nation’s firearms laws.

The Americans For Gun Safety Foundation found Illinois ranks 41st lowest among states in per capita prosecutions for federal gun offenses. For instance, only 32 of 26,111 people who lied on a firearm purchase background check form were prosecuted in Illinois from 2000 through 2003, the group said.

The study also said six gun dealers were prosecuted during that period, even though violations were found during 26 percent of inspections conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives over the same period.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney David Hoffman said gun trafficking is a higher priority for prosecutors in Chicago this year. Federal prosecutors are focusing on gun offenses most likely to lead to violence, he said.

There’s an old adage about enforcing existing gun laws. Maybe they should take that to heart. The entire AGS report is here.

Five of the give states had the most of all trafficking prosecutions, four are fairly gun friendly. They are New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia. And, for the record, Tennessee ranks sixth in total prosecutions and we’re a gun friendly state. It seems we actually enforce the laws on the books. It’s easier to enforce those laws because there aren’t a million of them.

Here’s how it starts:

Windsor’s Humane Society is resorting to euthanizing pit bulls.

In the week since Windsor city council has banned the acquisition of pit bulls and put tight restrictions on dogs already in the city, at least 10 of the animals have been turned over to the Humane Society.

The general manager hopes to find homes for some pit bull puppies, but says the adult dogs have become outcasts.

The result of breed specific legislation.

This piece tries to appear moderate but in actuality shows some sportsmen who know very little about guns:

He said the once-outlawed assault weapons serve no purpose in hunting so he won’t purchase any, “but I don’t want to be the person telling someone else that they can’t have them.”

Most firearm hunters use shotguns or rifles, not the high-capacity weapons that were once banned, said Glenn “Bud” Wilkins, a hunter and member of the Winnebago County Board.

The banned weapons were rifles.

“Actually, for us, it didn’t matter. We’re skeet shooters, and we just use shotguns,” Lyran Gun Club Vice President Kirt Hedberg said. He added that the revolving cylinder shotguns that were once outlawed, but are now legal, wouldn’t be welcome at the club.

“That type of weapon wouldn’t be allowed; it’s way out of our league.”

Revolving cylinder shotguns are regulated as destructive devices and covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act. The assault weapons ban didn’t really affect them. But they get one thing right:

“This is just my opinion and not the club, necessarily, but I think the assault weapons ban only applies to John Q. Public,” Hedberg said. “To the criminal, it’s not going to matter.”

Likewise, McFarlane saw it as bad public policy.

“If they really want to do something about crime, they should do what other states have done and enact concealed carry laws,” he said.

Yes, to the criminal, it’s not going to matter:

FBI agents and police officers raided homes in several Westchester towns early Thursday morning, looking for 17 defendants who were not already in prison. By early afternoon, just two were at large, said Maria Barton, who heads the White Plains branch of the U.S. attorney’s office.

She said the investigation, a collaboration between the FBI and several local police departments, included street sales to informants and undercover officers of half a pound of crack cocaine, worth about $4,000, and 19 guns that sold for $300-$1,000 each.

A partial list of the 26 defendants’ addresses showed they were from Yonkers, White Plains, Peekskill and Elmsford. Their ages ranged from 21 to 45.

Ten of the defendants were on probation or parole after being convicted of other crimes, Barton said, including five who were felons. One man who had already been convicted of illegal weapon possession sold an AK-47 semiautomatic assault weapon to an FBI informant, she said.

At least, that is one possible headline. But the headline the AP chose to go with is:

U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD

After all, the post is called Uncle Bait. One of the Brutal Huggers (I can’t tell them apart) writes:

Asset forfeiture is a way for the government to take your property. Regardless of whether you’ve committed a crime, they can (and have!) seize cash, cars, houses, computers, and anything else whether they can carry it away or sell it on the spot. They can do this without convicting you of any crime. They can do this without even charging you with a crime!

If you want your property back, you have to sue the government to get it. And you’ll lose. It’s extremely difficult to win because you have the impossible burden of proving a negative– i.e. that your property hasn’t been even remotely involved in any criminal activity.

While you’re hopelessly suing the government to get your stuff back, your local police will be auctioning it off and pocketing the money. Law enforcement agencies make money from seizing your property. Talk about perverse incentives! It’s a recipe for corruption and just another way the drug war pits common citizens against the authoritarian police state.

First, the government needs to be reminded of this little thing called the Fourth Amendment. Secondly, BH states that Kerry is the same as Bush on the issue.

Pardon me while I put on my Libertarian hat for a minute:

A problem with government officials and politicians (almost all of them) is their desire for the government to have control over people. They want to control you or the system is set up for control. It allows them to rule. They want a government that is huge as it guarantees power, a livelihood, or some other benefit to them and other civil servants. The fact is, no prominent politician would take a stand on this issue because of the political fallout (loss of police support, viewed as soft on crime, makes you sound crazy, etc.). Yet this issue is important and results in government oppression. This is also the case with many other issues.

You’ll never rarely hear a politician talk seriously and legitimately about eminent domain abuse; no-knock warrants; asset seizure (it’s not a forfeiture); the drug war; egregious zoning practices; bogus racketeering charges; the legal system bullying juries; subsidies and other hideous practices by the USDA; the legal system getting innocent people to plead down because they can’t afford to fight the system and it’s easier to do jail time; or taxing to destroy something or someone. And there is no difference between nearly any political candidate or his opponent nor is there a difference among the two parties on these issues.

The courts have, time and again, let things slide as well. They didn’t take a stand for the first amendment on campaign finance reform, nor the second amendment in a variety of cases. Heck, they ruled that indoor plumbing makes no-knock warrants acceptable because you might flush something down the toilet. And, my personal favorite, random roadblock searches are legal as long as they stop everybody. I guess they really need to read the fourth amendment.

Think about it. They can take your car for a sack of fucking weed or some pills that you don’t have a doctor’s note for. Or they’ll take your house because they want to put a strip mall there. Martha Stewart is going to jail for lying about a crime the government couldn’t prove she committed. They can confiscate large amounts of cash merely because someone thinks it’s unusual for people to carry large amounts of cash. They even take your damn toenail clippers at the airport.

Addressing these issues in the political arena would not be popular. It would scare the little people. And it would make the the big ol’ government look corrupt (rather, look more corrupt). They need you stupid. They need you compliant. They need you poor so you must rely on them. They have to feed the beast somehow.

Do you really want this same bureaucracy handling your health care?

I’ll quote myself (bad form, I know, but it will illustrate what I mean):

Kevin, who thinks that we are on the downward spiral to a total loss of freedom, asks:

Believing what we believe, is it moral for us to let it happen without standing up and pledging our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to fight it? I have grandchildren. What do I owe them?

Despite my efforts at:

Putting up a sign in my yard that says the court system is a joke;

Making machine guns;

Refusal to give authorities ID;

Buying up property that may some day benefit the public good;

Starting my own un-licensed business;

Setting my water heater to 130 degrees;

Writing a book that tells people not to pay taxes;

Importing lobster tails of less than 5.5 inches;

Growing orchids;

Buying, with a personal check, significant quantities of indoor gardening lights to care for my begonias;

Carrying large amounts of cash;

Missing the occasional tax payment;

Using unusually high amounts of electricity (for the begonias);

Building model rockets;

Doing home improvements without getting government permission;

Being a smart ass to TSA employees and wearing a Hi, I’m a terrorist button on planes;

Taking pictures of my nephews bathing to get developed;

I have yet to encounter any targets of opportunity. They must be raiding the wrong houses. All kidding aside, I don’t do most of those things but those very actions have been cause for our government to trample liberties. And no one (but me and a few bloggers, apparently) gets angry about it.

I think our apathetic public is just unwilling to rise up about injustice. Not many people take to the streets in protest of our lost civil liberties. Not many practice civil disobedience.

Nevermind, Janet Jackson just showed her other boob.

Could you imagine the look on the face of a George Bush or a John Kerry if you asked them in a debate which won’t happen because it may make them think and they don’t have a prepared statement):

So, the drug war costs billions and billions and billions of dollars. Many innocent, peaceable citizens have been needlessly killed by a police force that has been essentially militarized. People are not secure in their homes because of no knock warrants and search warrants issued based on the frequently false testimony of criminals. Property is taken and lives are destroyed over a few minuscule amounts of drugs. Is it worth that price to confiscate an infinitesimally small fraction of a percent of the drug supply in this country?

Their responses would be:

Look over there, terrorists.

And fags.

So make noise about these issues, if they’re important to you.

Even our Democrats oppose tax increases and gun control:

“The people do not want an income tax,” said Jim Melton, an Independent candidate. “The state income tax is regressive and penalizes people for working and places an unfair burden on the middle class.”

Republican candidate Raymond Finney said people he talked to in Sevier and Blount counties voiced the most concern over taxes. Finney, a retired physician, indicated he could afford increasing taxes, but that a single mother making $6 an hour and raising two children could not.

“And the government is saying give us more,” Finney said.

Democrat Linda Jo Dees, a nurse and retired U.S. Army officer, said she wouldn’t support a state income tax, either. If elected to the state Senate, she said she’d also seek a 2 percent reduction on the sales tax for grocery items.

[Snip]

None of the three saw a need to increase gun control laws, though Melton was concerned about person-to-person gun sales and sale of firearms at gun shows. He clarified that wasn’t the same as seeking a ban.

Melton is an independent.

Here’s a decent article on gun safety. Until you get to the end:

Guns of any type should be stored unloaded and locked. It is a good idea to not only lock your weapons, but also partially disassemble the weapon (i.e. remove the bolt from a rifle and store in separate location). This way if a child or intruder discovers the weapon, it is not only locked, but also inoperable.

Then you don’t have a gun that could save your life. You have a paperweight. There are ways to keep guns accessible to you and not children. Look into those ways.

I often point out bad articles that misrepresent the assault weapons ban. Periodically, I run across one that is factual. Here’s a good one.

This article has a lot of numbers and figures. It concludes, based on those, that a pit bull ban was successful:

Statistics show that calls for stray pit bulls are down from 186 for all of last year to just 23 as of last week, a drop of 86 percent.

Meanwhile, 67 pit bulls were removed as illegal, up from zero last year, before the law took effect.

The statistics, compiled through Sept. 27 by Animal Control Supervisor John Holmes, showed 99 pit bull-related calls logged at the animal shelter, vs. 100 for all of last year.

Holmes said there are now about 148 pit bulls registered in the city, compared to about 45 last year.

Another 32 pit bulls, whose owners did not register or insure their animals or place them elsewhere, were euthanized by a veterinarian

Everyone of those numbers is useless. How many bites were prevented? How many owners of dogs that attacked someone were prosecuted? Answer the questions that matter. I read the article twice for bite info. I found the number of bites last year but not this year.

I read this (via John) and thought Neat, a pocket shotgun. Then, the owner of the shop’s name stuck with me. Koscielski. Not a common name. Where had I heard it? Googling did nothing. So, on a whim, I searched my site. Score.

Good to see his shop is still open but he could have, you know, let me know. Further in the article:

Koscielski was widely credited with coining the term “Murderapolis” when the city’s homicide rate shot up in the 1990s. He’s run unsuccessfully for mayor, fought zoning battles to stay in business and been investigated by federal agents.

So, I wonder how much bling bling Soros paid for factcheck.com?

In other news, thanks to the various misspoken items by Edwards and Bush, Osama Bin Laden has legally changed his name to Saddam Hussein. Good move really, since Saddam’s in jail, no one will look for him now.

Oh, wait. I mean local media.

I’d call that one for Cheney. Edwards repeated Kerry’s talking points. Cheney actually researched Kerry’s prior talking points and had some good rebuttals. Quote of the debate (which I missed, baby and all that):

“Senator Edwards, as Vice President I preside over the Senate. I’m there most Tuesdays, it’s part of my job. Until I walked on stage tonight, I had never met you.” – Vice President Cheney, referring to Sen. Edwards low attendance rate.

Oh yeah, I was surprised to hear Edwards go on about Halliburton.

I should be more concerned about the shots fired at the Bush Cheney HQ here in town, but, let’s face it, the female cop in this picture is damn cute.

Update: Someone complained that registration is required, so here’s the pic.

House and Senate negotiators have reached a tentative agreement on a bill that will allow Tennesseans (and other states) to deduct sales taxes they paid for federal income tax purposes:

Lawmakers in the states without an income tax have sought the sales tax benefit, which was taken away nearly 20 years ago in another federal tax overhaul.

The change would benefit Tennesseans who itemize deductions on their federal returns. The Congressional Research Service says that’s about one in four state taxpayers.

The agency estimates the tax benefit would average $470 for those who itemize.

That just seems like a paperwork nightmare.

A rebuttal letter to Swanee Hunt’s ridiculous column is here:

Thursday’s columnist Swanee Hunt (”The safety of America’s streets hinges on politics”) makes a number of erroneous and/or misleading statements concerning firearms, which deserve an answer.

She posits that the 1994 assault weapons ban is keeping AK-47s and Uzis off the streets. Not so. These are machine guns and have been, since 1934, covered under the National Firearms Act. Nothing about this law is scheduled to change.

That sounds like something one of my readers emailed me. Who was it? Confess!

This one seems to be enjoying himself.

This Boston Herald article addresses a study that concludes Massachusetts ranks 47th in prosecuting felons who possess firearms:

Hundreds of people who lied on their applications for gun permits in Massachusetts and dozens of corrupt gun dealers have gone unpunished by federal officials, according to a blistering new study.

The study, commissioned by a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group, ranks the Bay State a dismal 47th in the nation in prosecuting felons who possess firearms or who committed a violent felony with a firearm from 2000 to 2003.

Some 245 such felons were prosecuted in the state during that time – a low figure compared to other states per capita.

The report found that U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan’s office prosecuted just 12 of 505 Bay Staters caught lying on federal gun applications on criminal records, addresses or other information between 2000 and 2003.

The source comes later:

“Dirty dealers are a major source of crime guns,” said John Lacey, spokesman for the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation, which commissioned the study. “These are crimes that fall on the back of the federal government and they’re not prosecuting them.”

AGS is an anti-gun group. They hide behind the term safety but mean gun control. Regardless, Massachusetts gets an A- rating from the Brady Campaign. As such, you’d think that Massachusetts, using Brady logic, wouldn’t rank 47th. I suppose it’s a matter of the extent of the law. When you have more gun control laws than most other states, it’s probably hard to prosecute all (including the serious) cases.

A pretty good read:

This lack of correlation between gun control and violent crime rates would indicate that gun control on the whole does not do what HCI, Million Mom March, and the Brady Campaign, an influential gun-control advocacy group, says. It doesn’t reduce violent crime rates.

A report by the Brady Campaign states there has been a decrease in the amount of gun traces of “assault weapons” since the passing of the Federal Crime Bill. It also claims this decline is “extremely significant to law enforcement and has clearly enhanced public safety, especially since these military-style weapons are among the deadliest ever sold on the civilian market.”

It shouldn’t be a surprise that after it became illegal to manufacture or sell particular kinds of firearms, they became less common. “Assault weapons,” however, are not inherently more dangerous than hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and handguns.

The term “assault weapon” was invented to describe guns that looked scary to average people and has little meaning to those familiar with firearms. Examples include the AR-15 and AK-47, which are loosely based on weapons used by The American and Russian militaries.

Read the whole thing.

Fort Worth police are upgrading their arsenal to include AR15s, which is a good thing. They’re doing so to avoid being outgunned. However, I think the police chief has no idea what the assault weapons ban did, he’s a liar, or that he doesn’t know shit about guns:

Mendoza said that acquiring the weapons is even more of a priority since the expiration of the assault-weapons ban last month.

“We were going to do it anyway, but from my perspective, that adds more weight and more credence to do it as well,” he said.

Mendoza was among several police chiefs nationwide who had supported a continuation of the ban.

“I think it’s a disappointment to this organization, to the chiefs in the larger cities of the United States, that the legislators didn’t listen to some of the top law enforcement officers in the country,” Mendoza said.

The same weapons were available when the ban was in place. I don’t think it matters to the man on the street if that weapon has a bayonet lug or not.

Council Bluffs city council will vote on breed specific legislation soon. They want to ban pit bulls:

The council may re-introduce an ordinance to ban the pit bull breeds American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers at its meeting next Monday night. The ordinance was defeated at the Aug. 12 council meeting on a 2-2 tie vote.

Yup.

Cheney to Edwards (paraphrased):

Your facts are just wrong . . . but you probably weren’t there to vote for it, Senator.

Heh. This debate is like a repeat of the presidential debate. They’re both saying the same thing. I wonder if a side by side comparison of the transcripts would be that different?

I was reading an article on National Review about Colorado changing the way its electoral votes are allocated. There was one sentence in it that particularly annoyed me:

If the proposal would have been in effect in 2000, Al Gore would have won the presidency…. [emphasis added]

Now, I’m just a dumb redneck with an engineering degree, but just between you and I, I don’t think that’s the right way to use the subjunctive mood. However, I think it’s fairly common. What’s the deal?

Additional discussion topic: is it time to just give up on the subjunctive mood?

Forged AR lower receivers for $80.

This is not an ad (nothing at this site is), I’m just pointing my readers to a good deal. Heck, I spent $140 for one a week ago.

Update: And a kit for $415. That puts you in one for just over five bills. I got my upper (granted, it was in 7.62X39) for just over five bills (when you factor in FFL fees and shipping).

Update: Marc says the uppers don’t include bolt and charging handle. However, the kits ($415) do.

WBIR:

An unknown suspect fired several shots into the Bearden office of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign Tuesday morning.

The headquarters are located at 4618 Kingston Pike, next to Noveau Classics and in the same shopping plaza as Long’s Drugstore.

According to Knoxville Police Department (KPD) officers on the scene Tuesday, it is believed that the two separate shots were fired from a car sometime between 6:30 am and 7:15 am.

One shot shattered the glass in the front door and the other cracked the glass in another of the front doors.

There were no witnesses to the shooting. A customer at a nearby dry cleaning store noticed shattered glass on the sidewalk in front of the headquarters and called police.

The KNS writes about a local man arrested for possessing an unregistered machine gun (kudos to Jamie Satterfield for specifying it was unregistered):

A federal magistrate judge on Monday ordered a Sevier County man held without bond pending trial on charges he possessed an unregistered machine gun.

David Zimmerman, 44, is accused in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court with having a cache of weapons, including a rifle that authorities allege had been converted from a semi-automatic to a fully automatic weapon.

Zimmerman is a convicted felon. He bought the gun from Sevierville Police Department Officer Ted Newman, according to testimony from U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives Special Agent Forest Webb.

Webb said Newman insisted the rifle still operated as a semi-automatic when he sold it to Zimmerman. The ATF agent did not say whether Newman was aware Zimmerman has two prior felony convictions in New Jersey or whether the officer checked Zimmerman’s record before selling him the gun.

It is a crime to knowingly sell a convicted felon a gun. Newman, as a casual seller of a gun, was not required to conduct a background check on Zimmerman.

He bought it from a policeman, is a felon, and converted the gun illegally. When will this crime be blamed on the assault weapons ban? Further in the article:

In November 2003, Webb said he executed a search warrant at Zimmerman’s Kandy Way home in Sevier County and found the fully automatic rifle as well as 15 other weapons.

So, they waited almost a year to hold him? A reader speculated to me that maybe the case was held off for a year in order to politicize the Assault Weapons Ban.

Update: The same reader above inquired as to whether the article mentioning the case was held for a year was a misprint. The reporter stated it was not and that they did wait for a year.

Apparently, employees that work for the Department of Energy in Oak Ridge were getting tuition reimbursement for course work completed at bogus colleges. Your tax dollars at work.

A good right hook, however, may do it:

Following the news that a sex offender had moved into the town, parents are looking to adopt a new child education program called radKIDS, that attempts to teach children what to do if they are assaulted by adults.

The “rad” in radKIDS stands for resisting aggression defensively. According to radKIDS founder and former police officer Stephen Daley, his program gives children what other programs such as DARE don’t — empowerment.

“We teach children that no one has the right to hurt them because they are special, and that is the beginning of empowerment,” said Daley to the crowd of 35 teachers, parents and police officers during the Sunday afternoon presentation.

According to Daley, through radKIDS training children become empowered, learning to replace the fear, confusion and panic of dangerous situations with confidence, personal safety skills, and self-esteem.

The program, which combines tips on everything from fire safety and warding off bullies with a healthy dose of child self-defense moves, may soon see its way into York schools if Suzanne Heyland, a local parent, has her way.

First, it’s my job to protect my child. I realize that and I will do everything I can to do so. However, I won’t need the touchy-feely, tree-hugging, self-esteem, empowerment crap. The self defense stuff, safety skills and knowledge of how to react in dangerous situations is a must and trumps that hippie crap any day. All the self-esteem in the world won’t stop a criminal. Knowledge of how to escape and fight, however, will.

Check out Barrett’s new 25MM (yes, MM as in almost a 100 caliber) rifle:

The XM-109 is essentially a reconfigured M-107 .50 Caliber semi-automatic rifle — if you can imagine a .50 caliber rifle being mated with a 25 mm receiver. Thanks to the increased power, the XM-109 rifle is designated as a “payload” rifle, designed to destroy light armor, and light enough to be carried by a single sniper. Essentially, the 25mm upper receiver attaches directly to the lower receiver of the M-107 (in effect, swapping out the .50 caliber components for 25mm ones). In the process, the rifle’s weight actually remains unchanged at 33 pounds, but its length has been shortened considerably, with the XM-109 (at 46 inches) being 11 inches shorter than the M-107.

No doubt, a deer rifle.

The Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that prohibited gun shows on government property.

The Nashville Independent is up with two posts. Go check them out.

Update: They’re not up and running yet and those were test posts. Should be up soon though.

The Brady Campaign blames their first crime on the expiration of the assault weapons ban after just three weeks:

One of the nation’s first assault weapons crimes since the sunset of the ban on these weapons apparently occurred here late last week, at a Mobil gas station on South Sycamore Street, just sixteen days after Senator Arlen Specter and Congressional leaders helped the gun lobby kill the ban. An employee at the gas station told police the gun the robber brandished was an Uzi with a large capacity ammunition magazine. “The employee said he knew the weapon from seeing it in magazines and elsewhere before,” a police detective told the Bucks County Courier Times newspaper.

First, Uzis are still regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act as machine guns. Second, semi-automatic (i.e., not machine guns) versions of the Uzi are banned under a 1989 executive order. If the ban were still in place, it would not have prevented this robbery. Once again, the Brady’s have to lie to make a point for their cause.

Update: Apparently, the Brady Campaign made most of it up. Matt contacted the original reporter and finds the Brady Bunch doing what they do best, misrepresenting the facts.

Last month, I got instalanched three or four times. The result, my sit bogged down. The fine folks at Hostmatters then moved me to a new server without me (or you, dear reader) ever realizing it. Good job. And thanks.

It’s important to me because I’m going through an Instalanche right now and you can read this.

Jeff has the latest!

I have noted several times in the past that the election was Bush’s unless he did something really stupid. I wonder if his poor showing at the first debate could be the start of it. Polls the race is now close, and intimate the debate affected that. I have no reason to disagree.

Additionally, for some fun facts on the debate, this piece (HT: Michael) tells us some things we’d rather not have known about the debate. My favorite is:

(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.

“Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics,” Rice says. “For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare.”

Our candidates will not (or can not) address complex issues. Why? No doubt, fear of losing some of the base or because they don’t know enough about the issue. There will, for example, never be a serious public discussion on the benefits and costs of the drug war because the issue is too complex.

The question I really have is: Complex for whom?

Is it complex for me, a simple Joe-voter? Or too complex for our candidates? Do they think I’m not sophisticated enough to understand these complex issues or is it because they can’t form good, concise sound bytes since these issues are so complex?

You should read the whole post entitled When is a law not a law? However, this quote will give you an idea of the ambiguity of the whole thing:

This is the ultimate in government bull. They make a “rule” then declare it a secret, then tell you that you can not object to it because the rule, that you do not know anything about, and will not be told about even if you want to know, is not a law. That logic could drive a man to drink.

A nation of laws, eh?

CNSNews is reporting that newly found documents indicate Saddam had WMDs and extensive ties to terrorists:

Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com , show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein’s regime to work with some of the world’s most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam’s government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

The article goes into detail about the source of the documents. I’ll reserve judgment until CBS authenticates them. However, some of the detail:

A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.

There are no hand-writing samples to which the documents can be compared for forensic analysis and authentication. However, three other experts – a former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq – were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine.

An unsigned editorial in today’s Tennessean is all aflutter with emotion and no substance. Regarding the passage by the house of the repeal of the DC gun ban (a symbolic gesture which can’t clear the Senate, at least this term), they write:

The U.S. House of Representatives showed it’s more concerned about political capital than Washington, D.C.’s reputation as a murder capital in the United States with its vote last week lifting the ban on handguns.

Hmm. Murder capital and a near total gun ban at the same time. Now, I don’t really think that correlation equals causation but I think it’s a pretty safe bet that gun laws do not significantly impact crime.

No one can seriously believe this is good policy, but for both parties it seems to be good politics for members of Congress who can campaign back in the safety of their districts as gun advocates while poor Washington residents suffer for their mistake. All of Tennessee’s congressional delegation shamefully voted to lift the ban.

Actually, I seriously can. By dismissing completely that it may be good policy, there is no effort to present the case for it. It’s just dismissed outright.

But the lifting of the ban does much more than put handguns into the hands of Washington residents. The bill puts semiautomatic rifles and other weapons in their hands. The legislation also ends all requirements to register firearms as well as regulations that require owners to unload and lock up their rifles and shotguns.

So, it makes DC like just about every other place in the country where, you know, crime is lower?

It’s not the absence of guns in Washington that has given the city the name of murder capital; it’s the proliferation. Lifting the ban is some kind of cruel joke. But Americans should consider the ultimate irony: Congress is spending billions of dollars to protect itself and the nation’s most important work in Washington from terrorists. The House apparently wants to hand terrorists another weapon.

Actually, it’s got more to do with the socio-economic aspects of DC than gun availability. Obviously, the guns are getting in somehow and criminals are getting them. These laws disarm honest citizens or result in them breaking the law to feel safe.

Dana Wilkie:

Watchdog groups say misstatements, distortions by both candidates plague presidential race, making it difficult to separate fact from fiction.

Sounds about right to me. Continuing:

Sen. John Kerry’s supporters leave voters with the impression that President Bush wants to put machine guns in the hands of civilians.

He doesn’t.

Bush backers want voters to think Kerry advocates more abortions in this country.

He doesn’t.

[snip]

One TV ad aired last month by MoveOn.org, a liberal group that supports Kerry, showed a picture of an AK-47 assault rifle and said such guns can fire up to 300 rounds a minute – a challenging feat with the semiautomatic version of the weapon, which requires one pull of the trigger for each bullet fired – then simulates the sound of machine-gun fire. An announcer said Kerry, “a sportsman and a hunter, would keep” the weapon illegal.

“But on Sept. 13th,” the ad announcer continued, “George Bush will let the assault weapons ban expire.”

The message is that Bush wants civilians to own machine guns. Yet the assault weapons ban has nothing to do with machine guns or other fully automatic weapons, which civilians have not been able to own legally without U.S. Justice Department approval since 1934.

I have some good friends who vote straight Republican. Even they thought the ban affected machine guns and they make an effort to follow politics. I explained it didn’t and they were a bit confused. I then explained that the ban is portrayed as such (quite intentionally) for shock factor. I’m not sure I convinced them as I haven’t heard about since but at least they thought about it. I should have printed off this handy information packet, I suppose.

Is Dorothy Samuels, courtesy of the New York Times. She begins with the typical misinformed rants about the assault weapons ban and refers to attempts to repealed DC’s gun ban (i.e., make DC like most of the rest of the country) as loony. Then she discusses an anti-suicide bill. The bill, which apparently allots $82M for counseling, she says doesn’t address what she feels causes suicide, which is guns in the home:

But the bill’s positive aspects notwithstanding, it fails to address perhaps the most salient risk factor for troubled young people – the presence of a gun in the home. This avoidance is particularly frustrating given the scant chance that Congress will revisit the teenage suicide issue anytime soon, and the fact that it doesn’t take a brain surgeon – just a lowly editorial writer – to see a couple of common sense steps that Congress could have taken to protect kids, and didn’t take.

She states that the bill doesn’t have a provision for Child Access Prevention (warning: CAP will be a new anti-gun term soon!) and blames that on the gun lobby, which implies the NRA. Mind you, she provides almost no evidence that the NRA tried to kill the addition, but she implies it.

We pro-gun types have often point out that supposed assault weapons were (and still are) rarely used in crime. It turns out, that number may have even been inflated when the assault weapons issue was invented in the 1980s:

“Should it be renewed, the (assault weapons ban) ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” That bombshell admission appears in a report prepared for the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Jerry Lee Center of Criminology.

The report also revealed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives apparently overstated the use of these firearms in crimes during the 1980s and 1990s. The report also noted that even before the ban took effect, so-called assault weapons were used “in only a small fraction of gun crime — about 2 percent according to most studies.”

Of course, I have yet to see the NIJ study mentioned prominently in a major media piece addressing the ban.

Just watched Jeopardy. One of the categories in Double Jeopardy was “Blogs.”

I felt like Cliff Clavin.

The smoke has cleared and the candidates were fact checked. Conclusion: Both are full of it. Additionally, Kerry got a bump. As the Commissar said, Kerry on points, but he needed a knockout.

I’d call it for Kerry based on perception and demeanor. Kerry was confident, direct, and assertive. He had his game face on. Bush seemed annoyed and taken aback a few times. Bush hammered his message that Kerry was inconsistent. Kerry hammered his message that Bush had messed up.

I should point out that calling it for Kerry is based entirely on demeanor and that, as someone who has followed the campaign, Kerry was unconvincing. If this was the only exposure I had to the two of them, Kerry won.

I wonder if Bush is using a Jedi mind trick. I recall the first debate with Gore. Gore took the lead and made his case. Heck, I was convinced Gore won that one. However, the media later reported that Gore was really full of it and most of the things he said weren’t really true. Is Bush doing it again? Letting Kerry appear to have won while the fact checkers do their work? We’ll see.

Foreign policy is the issue that Bush should have had handily. He didn’t run with it. It will cost him some votes.

Chuck Schumer has promised that Congress will take the issue up again during its next session:

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer said he hasn’t given up trying to renew the ban, which fell by the wayside two weeks ago.

“Not continuing the ban on assault weapons is one of the great disgraces this year,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, promising that members of Congress will take up the cause during its next session.

A story in yesterday’s Daily News showed how the once-banned weapons can pierce through concrete and even some bulletproof vests.

And some law enforcement officials fear the powerful guns, once used to guard drug dens during the height of the crack epidemic, could make their way back into New York City.

“The Daily News talked about people having AR-15s,” Schumer said. “Nobody needs an AR-15. These were designed as weapons of war. … They should be abolished.”

What’s need got to do with it, Chucky? I’m guessing the push will come after the election. Also, Mayor Bloomberg is taking Bush to task over the issue.

The media portrayal of the assault weapons ban is discussed by Laurence Elder:

Can Americans now purchase assault weapons?

If you listen to some pols and mainstream media, you probably cannot answer that question.

In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a 10-year ban on so-called “assault weapons.” In reality, the bill outlawed certain semiautomatic weapons with cosmetic features that made them look, well, military.

He also addresses the media portrayal of these weapon as machine guns.

The AP did it. So, again, these are the two best candidates this country can produce?