The Commissar offers some advice for bloggers. With that, I’ll follow up with mechanical things that you can do:

Have a blogroll – If you link to other sites, people using Technorati or the Ecosystem will notice you’re linking to them. This may inspire them to read your blog. I find, however, some people have huge blogrolls and massive reciprocal links. Here at SayUncle, if you’re on the blogroll, then I read your site. If you don’t link to people, you won’t get noticed. I have to say that if you’re just starting out, do as I say and not as I do. Link to anyone you find interesting. People appreciate links.

Watch your hits – Whether you use sitemeter or any other traffic counter, figure out where your hits are coming from. People linking to you will let you know what sort of audience you’re attracting.

Read other blogs – And go there from your blogroll. People will appreciate that you read their site and this will get you noticed. Also, leave comments. I’m not saying troll comment sections and shamelessly plug your blog at every opportunity. I am saying that engaging in debate and discussion will increase your traffic.

Have comments – people like to discuss, debate, call you an idiot, or whatever. Of course, some folks’ sites get too bogged down with comments so they disable them but most of us aren’t that big. If people have a platform to express themselves or refute you, they’re more likely to come back.

Enable Trackbacks – Another way to find out who is linking to you. In fact, my page has in-line Trackbacks so that if you link to my site, you’re guaranteed a link back.

Email bloggers – Don’t email everything you write to everyone. In fact, lots of stuff that I personally get emailed as part of a bulk list gets classified as spam by Yahoo. But send well-thought posts about relevant issues. Borrowing from Volokh: Plug the post, not the site. If you have something insightful to say and you want to say it to someone, then email it. I get a lot of email and I’m a small-fry blogger. But I get, at a guess, 50 emails per day (that aren’t spam). I don’t read them all but try to read most of them.

I consider my blog moderately successful. I am a large mammal in the ecosystem. Even though it counts many carnival links for some reason despite emailing TTLB a few times, I still get quite a few links. I get 157 links excluding Carnival links which still places me in the Large Mammal group. I also get about 577 visits per day and 967 page views per day according to Sitemeter. Per Awstats, I get 759 visits and 2522 page views per day. I also have a fairly active comments section. If you’d asked me when I first started this blog (and my only reader was SouthKnoxBubba, and a big thanks to him for plugging me in my early days) if I thought my blog would do that well, I’d have said no. But I stuck to it and am quite happy with it.

That’s my advice. Take it for what it’s worth.

This 9/11 Commission thing is turning into a partisan pissing contest. I advise everyone to take anything from it with a grain of salt. No, it’s not Clinton’s fault that some whackos flew some planes into some buildings. It’s not Bush’s fault either.

This is just an attempt to prop up some political careers of congressmonkies, while taking some jabs at whichever other politico they want to make look bad. It also serves as a venue to let the same incompetent congressmonkies stand up on their bully-pulpit so they can show their constituents that they’re doing some work.

Unfortunately, this partisan snit will result in getting very few answers that mean anything substantial. Mark my words.

Via Ravenwood, it turns out a county in Oregon has banned marriage (gay and hetero) until the state decides who can get hitched.

There’s probably a lot of pissed off wedding planners in Oregon.

Brian has lots of good stuff. The two I found most interesting were this post on what the tipster in the Ohio sniper case had to go through; and you will get my bowling balls when you pry them from my cold dead hands. Actually, I don’t bowl. I guess I need to get a ball.

The bill requiring dogs in truck bed to be restrained has been withdrawn. I find it odd that this bill has been front page news off and on for about a month. Not much happens here in Tennessee.

This is about the worst article on the Assault Weapons Ban I have read. Not only is it factually inaccurate but it contains many spelling and grammatical errors. I’m glad this guy is on the other side.

WBAL writes:

A proposed state ban on assault weapons appears doomed this year in Annapolis.

Gov. Robert Ehrlich opposes the bill, and a Senate committee is poised to reject it by a single vote.

They may try to attach a tax bill to it to get it through but still seems to be good news.

Here’s another AWB post. During the recent Senate battle, I emailed my Senators in addition to phoning them. I have just now received a reply from my Democrat Senator:

Thank you for contacting me concerning the important issue of gun ownership and gun safety. I appreciate hearing from you.

I believe the best approach to this important issue is one which strikes a balance between two important principles: protecting the legitimate rights of law-abiding gun owners and keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and children.

As you know, our state has a rich tradition of hunting and sporting uses of guns. I value this part of our state’s history, and I believe that the Second Amendment gives law-abiding citizens the right to own a gun. I also believe that there are a few common-sense measures that can improve the safety of firearms and help protect all of us from weapons in the hands of violent criminals.

I understand your view about the assault weapons ban, especially your concern that certain firearms used extensively by hunters and sportsmen are covered by the ban. While I am always open to suggestions for reform, it is my belief that the law already gives hunters and sportsmen a great deal of flexibility to choose the right weapons. Although you and I may disagree about this, please be assured that I will keep you thoughts in mind as the Senate considers this matter.

I will continue to support measures that strike this important balance, and I appreciate hearing from you about this issue. Please feel free to keep in touch.

This email is astonishingly similar to the snail-mail I got from him a couple months ago in response to my letter about the AWB. No, I don’t blame him for sending a form letter; it’s perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Still, if I had the Senator’s ear for a bit, I’d like to discuss some issues with him. For starters, let’s just consider “gun safety.” The Senator is obviously concerned with “safety,” because he mentions it twice. Well, first of all, I wasn’t aware that there was a national problem with unsafe guns in circulation. I mean, I think I read something about exploding Glocks, but that doesn’t seem like an issue for the Congress. Furthermore, as I recall, the AWB doesn’t address the gun safety. All it does is ban the manufacture of firearms with certain cosmetic features. How does that make the guns safer?

Ha ha, I’m only kidding. I know what the Senator REALLY means. “Gun safety” is just the new way of saying “gun control.” The Democrats have finally figured out that “gun control” isn’t a winning issue, but what kind of monster could be against safety? The Senator wants to keep us safe, not from our own guns, but from guns in “the hands of violent criminals and children.”

But wait a minute. Isn’t it ALREADY illegal for “violent criminals and children” to have ANY gun in their hands? So how does a law (that prohibits manufacture of firearms with certain cosmetic features) accomplish the goal of “keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and children,” when laws that SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT “violent criminals and children” from having guns in their hands aren’t doing the job?

Let’s move on. The Senator says he believes “the Second Amendment gives law-abiding citizens the right to own a gun.” That’s comforting, because I’m pretty sure that puts him in the minority in the Senate. But I’m not sure the Senator is all that familiar with the actual text of the Amendment, because he mentions “hunters and sportsmen” three times. Now, the Senator is a lawyer, and I am not, but I’m fairly certain the Second Amendment says nothing at all about hunters or sportsmen. In fact, I’m fairly certain the Supreme Court ruled that the Amendment really only protects the ownership of firearms that could be used by the militia–i.e., those used by soldiers.

However, there’s a more fundamental issue here that the Senator is side-stepping: where does the Constitution empower the Congress to ban the manufacture of certain firearms, regardless of the issues of “safety?”

I refer the Senator to the Constitution. In particular, Article 1, Section 8. Show me the one that empowers Congress to ban the manufacture of ANYTHING, much less certain firearms.

The Senator points out that the very first line says the Congress has the power to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” That’s nice, but I’d like to refer the Senator to the words of James Madison (I believe he is considered an authority on the subject of the Constitution), from his veto of a public works bill and the Federalist #41. Madison says that the “general welfare clause” does not grant any powers; instead, it is a general phrase that is that is refined and qualified by the list of specific powers that follow. In other words: the “general welfare” clause is there to explain why the Congress has the following list of powers. Rather similar, if you think about it, to the “well-regulated militia” clause of the Second Amendment.

The Senator points out that the Congress DOES have the power to regulate commerce “among the several States.” That’s a very good point, and it’s true that the Congress has decided they can use this power to do just about whatever they please. I do note for the record that a Constitutional amendment was necessary for the Congress to prohibit the manufacture or sale of alcohol.

Anyway, that’s what I’d like to talk with the Senator about. It probably wouldn’t do much good. He’s unlikely to change his views, and since he’s not running for another term this fall, he doesn’t have much incentive to make me happy. I should be thankful, though: he hardly ever shows up for votes.

In honor of Buy a Gun for Michael Moore Day, Mrs. Uncle bought me a Ruger 10/22 Synthetic.

Now I gotta get one of these.

Today’s our anniversary. Two years. We’re no longer eligible to be contestants on The Newlywed Game. I figure it’s OK if one gun serves as a gift and a Buy a Gun for Moore purchase.

Happy Anniversary, Sweetie!

Publicola emails that he thinks my primer on the assault weapons ban may have a factual error. He thinks that grenade launchers (i.e., a device that throws grenades) is not actually regulated by any gun law. This is largely a moot point with respect to the assault weapons ban as, even though launchers may not be, grenades themselves have been regulated as destructive devices since 1934. And I do recall seeing flare launchers for sale at gun shows that could launch grenades. Does anyone know if launchers themselves are regulated or if it’s just the grenades?

I posted this entry with a little over a year to go on the ban. Since the ban is looming, I figure a repost is in order:

The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (hereinafter AWB) is confusing.

People were led to believe that rifles like this one:

Would be banned. While rifles like this one:

Wouldn’t be. Of course, both rifles above fire 5.56MM ammo, accept magazines with a capacity of 30 (and even more) rounds. Oh, and both of the above rifles are actually not banned by the AWB. The latter rifle doesn’t look as mean. Continuing with the rifles that look evil theme, look at this one:

The above rifle is legal to own:

This one isn’t:

Alert readers will note that this is a picture of the same rifle mentioned above. What then is the difference? The first rifle was made on September 13, 1994. The second was made on September 14, 1994. Tricky, isn’t it?

The most important factor is that the AWB doesn’t ban Assault Weapons. It bans features. It actually doesn’t ban individual features. It bans combinations of features. From the text of the AWB:

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii)a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii)a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher

First, grenade launchers have been regulated as destructive devices since the 1934 Gun Control Act. And drive-by bayoneting hasn’t been a problem for anyone. A rifle made on or after September 14, 1994 can have one of the above features but not two or more. Such as this one:

You wouldn’t know it to look at the picture, but the one above has a pin (which coincidentally is easy to remove) inserted into its stock that prevents it from collapsing. Mind you, you can purchase stocks that come in varieties of sizes ranging from the shortest position of a telescopic stock to longer than the telescopic stock. The AWB has just banned the ability for the same stock to change sizes. You can still purchase small stocks or large ones.

Also, that thing on the tip of the barrel isn’t a flash suppressor, it’s a muzzle break. A flash suppressor doesn’t actually suppress the flash. It causes the flash to disburse to the sides of the barrel instead of straight ahead. A gun with a flash suppressor is as easy to see fired at night as one without. What is the significance of a suppressor then? You can maintain a site picture without the flash getting in the way. Now the muzzle break is designed to keep the barrel from rising when fired. You’ll notice that you can’t tell the difference between a flash suppressor and muzzle break in this picture so I will tell you the difference. A flash suppressor has vents all the way around the circumference of it. A muzzle break only has vents on top. So, the AWB has essentially banned the placement of little holes on a small piece of metal, which doesn’t affect the fact that the gun is still a semi-automatic rifle based on a military design.

As for pistol grips, that seems to be the feature most people want. It doesn’t affect the function of the weapons it just makes it more comfortable to shoot.

People interpret the threaded barrel bit as a ban on threaded barrels when really it is a ban on threaded barrels that can accept flash suppressors. Of course, you could have a threaded barrel so long as there no suppressors available for it.

So to recap: A rifle made before September 14, 1994 can have any of the above features. A rifle made after can only have one. If you think you have it mastered, I suggest you take this little quiz. Good luck and tell me how you did. I missed one.

Barry has trackback and wants to see if it works.

Update: Nope.

Update2: You have to ping the trackback URL. It’s not smart enough to associate the permalink with the trackback.

Bjorn tells us exactly why we shouldn’t purchase any third-party warranties. Read it, it could save you a few bucks.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights is being taken seriously. Bill Hobbs has been on this issue for about two years now. What it does:

When the state government takes in excess money, taxpayers would get a refund of the extra cash under a proposal going before a legislative committee Tuesday.

The ”Taxpayer Bill of Rights” is designed to keep state revenue from growing more than population growth plus inflation.

Money over the amount set by that formula would be refunded to taxpayers through a check or a reduction in taxes.

It’s modeled after a law in Colorado that taxpayer advocates cheer but advocates for public services call a devastating straitjacket on government finance.

The constitutional provisions would also give voters the last say on tax increases.

The 9/11 commission has cited inaction by both the Bush and Clinton administrations. To be honest, I think all of this is just a witch hunt. I tend to doubt either administration thought seriously that the attacks could have been pulled off.

Walmart housed a program that did tax returns for low and moderate income tax payers. But not any more:

After nearly 10 years hosting a Volunteer Income Tax Assistance site inside its Walker Springs location, the discount chain has informed VITA tax preparers to find somewhere else to do free tax returns for low- and moderate-income taxpayers.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Services, a for-profit tax preparer, has a contract with Wal-Mart to sell its services at the store and said the Internal Revenue Service-sponsored VITA program was competing for customers in violation of that contract.

Jeff of Protein Wisdom got a letter from Ted Kennedy and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign. He gives the letter a nice little fisking, so I won’t comment on the content of the letter. I just want to know one thing:

How the blazes did I get on THIS mailing list?

Turns out teachers don’t do so well on tests. Another study is here. I’m starting to see why teachers oppose No Child Left Behind requirements about testing.

Another proposed .50 ban full of the usual lies and misinformation. Can anyone actually identify a crime that has been committed with one of these rifles?

Even though I am skeptical of any claim made by Al Qaeda, it is important to note that their number two whacko is going around telling people they have a suitcase nuke:

Osama bin Laden’s terror network claims to have bought ready-made nuclear weapons on the black market in central Asia, the biographer of al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader was quoted as telling an Australian television station.

In an interview scheduled to be televised on Monday, Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir said Ayman al-Zawahri claimed that “smart briefcase bombs” were available on the black market. It was not clear when the interview between Mir and al-Zawahri took place.

Unfortunately, yours truly did not watch 60 Minutes last night. This is mostly because I never watch 60 Minutes or any other tabloid news program (particularly when The Simpsons is on). But apparently, Richard Clarke asserted that the administration was woefully inadequate at this whole terrorism thing and kept trying to steer things toward attacking Iraq.

These charges are pretty heinous and absolutely should be addressed but there is one factor that I still have to consider: The jilted lover factor. Seems to me Clarke may have ulterior motives.

Update: Drudge is reporting that CBS had a financial stake in the book and didn’t disclose it. This page at CBS says:

His allegations are also made in a book, “Against All Enemies,” which is being published Monday by Free Press, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster. Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom.

But I don’t know if that info was made available on 60 Minutes. Could be nothing.

Phelps writes:

And one last thing: You may think of yourself as Upper-Middle Class, S-Train, but to the people who talk about “the rich” and “the poor”, you get lumped into the rich pile. When people start talking about The Man, they are talking about you.

Yup. I recall when that Democrat stooge (governor of Washington, I think) did his rebuttal to the president’s state of the union last year. He admitted that the rich were those that made over $300,000 per year. If you can’t stop working now and never work again, you’re not the rich.

Buddy Don has posted some Whisky Porn.

If I almost financially ruined my employer, I don’t think I’d be trying to get a 49% raise. But that’s what Tennessee legislators are trying to do:

A bill pending in the General Assembly would raise legislators’ salaries for the first time in 16 years, something some lawmakers say is necessary to attract and retain quality members.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Kernell, a Memphis Democrat who lists ”legislator” as his occupation in legislative reference books, would bump the salaries from $16,500 to $24,600.

[Snip]

Tennessee lawmakers, in addition to their salaries, also receive $525 a month for home office expenses, along with $129 a day per diem when they’re in Nashville and 32 cents a mile for travel expenses

However, they do seem a bit underpaid. I guess we get what we pay for.

So, the founder of Hamas has been whacked. Doesn’t break my heart but I wonder if this will add a few hundred years to that little conflict in the Middle East.

I’m no fan of Kerry but comparing him to Michael Jackson is just mean.

And we thought police were all for gun control:

I took exception to Tuesday’s letter, “Common sense won,” from Marsha McCartney of the Dallas Million-Mom March for implying that any vote against the assault weapons ban was a vote against law enforcement. I have been a police officer for the last 13 years, and I can’t remember the last time I saw an assault weapon used in a crime.

Assault weapons simply are not the weapons of choice for criminals. I have talked to a great many officers, and I have yet to find one who supports the assault weapons ban. They see it for what it is – a political ploy by liberal politicians that has no benefit on society.

So I am wondering what law enforcement the Texas senators turned their back on. As far as I can see, they stood with us.

Mark Mladenka, Dallas

I personally know a lot of local policemen. All of them seem to be opposed to the ban.

This article addresses some of the gun bill stuff. My issue with it is that it refers to Americans for Gun Safety as a moderate group. Moderate, my ass. Continuing:

They should look, in fact, to a bill to be offered as an amendment to S. 659. The amendment would close the gun-show loophole, a move supported by President Bush, that currently requires dealers at gun shows to conduct background checks on buyers but exempts casual sellers who are sometimes not so casual. The loophole not only gives criminals an easy way to buy a wide range of high-powered guns in large quantities but creates an unfair market for legitimate dealers. The bill, sponsored by Republican Sens. John McCain and Mike DeWine and Democratic Sens. Jack Reed and Joe Lieberman, redefines the difference between commercial sales, which would include sales where at least 75 firearms are offered, and private sales, including sales from private homes or at hunt clubs, which would be exempt.

Background checks have become much faster – more than 90 percent take less than a few minutes, only 4 percent take more than a day, according to the FBI – and would not be a burden for the small-time seller. Under the bill, the gun show officials itself would qualify as licensees to call in any sale. The checks would be further improved by legislation co-sponsored by Sens. Larry Craig, a Republican, and Edward Kennedy, a Democrat, to speed up and improve the accuracy of the checks.

The reauthorization of the assault-weapons ban is expected to be a second major amendment to S. 659. Despite the warnings of a slippery slope infringement on the Second Amendment when it was passed 10 years ago, the assault-weapons ban has not led to the widespread diminishment of gun ownership. But it has worked: the percentage of banned weapons traced to crimes has dropped by two-thirds since 1994, and a strong majority of Americans, including a majority of gun owners, back its reauthorization.

The assault weapons ban has had zero impact on crime. The reason is that these weapons were only used in considerably less than one percent of crimes before the ban and these weapons also represented a small market share of total guns sold. Also, very few criminals get guns at gun shows.

And then there’s this:

The ban, enacted in 1994, will expire Sept. 13 unless renewed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

Among those supporting the legislative effort is Atlantic Chief of Police Roger Muri. He said while his department has never had to deal with such a weapon, they never want to.

“That is it in a nutshell,” he said. “These types of weapons are designed for one purpose – to rob banks and ‘shoot the place’ up.”

Muri said he supports the right to own guns, but sees no need for assault weapons.

If you support the ban on assault weapons, you do not support the right to own guns. I have an AR15 and I am happy to say that I have never robbed a bank nor have I shot the place up.

And it looks like Pennsylvania is looking at enacting its own ban.

One thing I have noticed is that just about every article I have read to day points to the fact the assault weapons ban (which isn’t a ban and has no effect on assault weapons) is expiring. I have a feeling we’ll be seeing more stories that tell us the sky is falling as September 13 draws near.

Here is a decent article on problems with Pit Bull bans:

“Many people believe that pit bulls and Rottweilers are dangerous dogs. In law, the general rule in the United States is that no dog is dangerous because of its breed. Rather, it is dangerous only as a result of its actions.”

After all, ANY dog — for that matter, any animal, including a human — can be “trained” to become a vicious, anti-social beast. Violent tendencies are not necessarily inherent to a particular breed, they are learned behaviors.

And that is where the focus should rightly be placed: on the owner who trains the dog to be a threat to unsuspecting passers-by.

We hope city commissioners will not fall victim to that peculiar brand of groupthink in which an entire breed is condemned due to the unfortunate actions of a few unpenitent outlaws.

There are laws already on the books concerning animal behavior; those laws simply must be enforced, because they were intended to guarantee public safety.

This also ignores the fact that when Breed Specific Legislation is passed, owners of dogs who teach those dogs to be vicious just switch to another breed.

I still get a lot of hits to this post from people searching for spiked bracelets. I get the occasional comment as well and they’re pretty funny. There’s some new comments so go read them. They’re quite funny.

Seriously, Mike is back from hiatus. It’s a blog you should be reading (and it’s a blog he should be writing more regularly).