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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article then draws a fairly obvious parallel:

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

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

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

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

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

This is abysmal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JTO writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memo to Tom:

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

Memo to the KNS:

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

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

Per this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed.

Update: Jed has more.

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

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

The world’s turned upside down!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But stupid enough to send some angry correspondence.

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

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

Good for the Herald-Mail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My ass:

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

So, what’s wrong with that quote?

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

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

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

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

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

As Kynn says:

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

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

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

I concur.