Jeff has the latest.

Gun hysteria defined:

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

And the assault weapons ban would not have prevented it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schwarzenegger calls Democrats girlie men. Girlie men everywhere offended.

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

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

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

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

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

(snip)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt takes on the other biased Washington paper.

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

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

Screw you guys, I’m outta here.

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

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

C.W. Nevius, who I told you was wrong here, has a follow up to his lame pit bull article:

Beck has dealt with the pit bull fanatics in his studies as an epidemiologist and says he’s observed that, “The arguments and the people strike me as very similar to the gun control people.” First was the question of the overall population of pit bulls. Sure, several readers complained, if the pit bull population is increasing it is obvious there are more bites.

For starters, although pit bulls are being bred (and over bred) wildly, most experts, including Beck and his former student, Randall Lockwood, of the Humane Society of the United States, estimate that pit bulls and pit mixes are no more than 6 percent of the overall dog population.

You mean anti-gun control people like me. Freudian slip? You say it like it’s a bad thing. Consistently, us pro-gun folks tend to have the facts on our side. I would like to see the basis for the 6% number. One thing you fail to account for is that pits, like Rotties, have a tendency to attract owners that shouldn’t own any dog, much less a dog with the gameness of various performance breeds.

For his study Beck used the American Kennel Club registrations by breed. Although the AKC doesn’t register or recognize pit bulls as a breed, Beck included the broad range of dogs, like Staffordshire terriers that fall within the range. Beck stresses that, if anything, his inclusion of dogs with pit bull characteristics was conservative, it was not a wide range of any dog with a square jaw, for instance. And before you fire up your flaming e-mail, Beck reminds you that this is “a representative sample,” not the total of all dogs. But it is certainly larger than the one we use to rate television programs.

So, he excluded all the bully type registries (and there are several like the NKC) which means his numbers are wrong.

Others wrote that it is all those terrible owners who are the real problem. That’s true to a point. The number of backyard breeders is appalling. The dogs are poorly cared for and often end up homeless. That is one reason the percentage of pit bulls killed in shelters, according to studies by animal expert Merritt Clifton, is 93 percent.

“However,” says Beck, “if a very small part of the dog population accounts for 40 to 50 percent of the serious and fatal attacks, ‘pit bull- ness’ is the cause.” Look, we are not surprised when a pointer starts pointing, or when my dachshund starts digging. Everyone accepts that. But if we start talking about a low tolerance for pain and a propensity to attack (with pit bulls) it is wrong.

It gets back to the point of pit bulls attracting the wrong kind of owners. So, he almost gets it. It is the fault of the owners. And your Dachshund has the worst temperament of any dog but you’re a responsible owner, I assume.

We wouldn’t allow this in any other case. If this animal was carrying a disease we’d just say, “You can’t have it.” That’s why you can’t have monkeys. They are too prone to disease. The pit bull has a disease. Now maybe it was us who caused it (over years of breeding), but at this point he does not fit in well in an urban environment.”

It’s a disease now? That may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard said about dogs.

Update: XRLQ (which you should be careful not to misspell) states in comments:

1. Note how comparing anyone to gun advocates is supposed to automatically make them wrong. Frisco’s bad in that way, and the media is worse, so I guess it figures that the Frisco media is as bad as it gets.

2. Last week, pit bulls accounted for “every other” dog in the East Bay shelter. Now they’re down to 6% of the canine population. And we’re supposed to respect that figure because it’s a “conservative” (i.e., probably too low) estimate. Huh?

3. My favorite part was this idiot’s claim that pit bulls have a “low tolerance for pain.” Pits are known, of course, for their high tolerance of pain, which is why two of them go on fighting in the pit long after one of them should have conceded the fight.

The last two I should have gotten around to but the baby started fussing.

By now, you’ve probably already read this story by Annie Jacobsen about what looked like a “dry run” by possible terrorists. If not, give it a read.

Now suppose you found yourself in a similar situation. What do you do about it? I’ve been mulling this one over myself, and I’m still not sure.

Am I blogging about guns too much? If so, what do you want me to blab about?

Well, they weren’t breaking the law so it’s not disobedience. But it’s not obedience either. Turns out, it was a blogger.

It should be noted that I don’t think open carry like this is good for team but I admire the sentiment.

Via Jeff.

When faced with an armed attacker, police say what you need to do is make as much noise as possible to draw attention to yourself.

SayUncle notes that firearms are awesome noisemakers. Fight crime, shoot back.

Smith and Wesson reports handgun sales are up 27%. Good.

Martha Stewart is going to serve jail time for lying about a crime that no one could prove she committed. Lame.

Another unsigned editorial says:

The National Rifle Association and other enemies of firearms regulation claim that the existing assault weapons ban is ineffectual and senseless because it only outlaws cosmetic features of certain guns whose action is identical to that of legal hunting rifles. They are largely right.

The ban outlaws 19 specific guns, plus certain combinations of military-style features, such as folding stocks and detachable magazines. It exempts 670 hunting firearms. But the ban is not more effective because the NRA and its allies have worked hard to make sure that it isn’t, and manufacturers can skirt it.

Again, blame the evil gun manufacturers.

The goal should be to create a new law that not only extends the current ban but strengthens it to accomplish the original intent, which is to ban military-style, semi-automatic weapons that fire many rounds in quick succession.

That sounds a bit familiar:

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

The seed has been planted and they’re trying to take it further.

Howard Nemerov debunks the Brady Campaign’s talking points about gun-free Australia. Excerpt:

We’ll give the Brady Campaign a half-point for a partial truth: if there are fewer firearms, they cannot be used to commit murder. But claiming that banning guns has had any effect on the actual murder rate is simply molding the facts to fit their agenda.

Les has his weekly gun links up. Particularly interesting to me is the bit about online gun sales.

A PA man told his doctor that he drank more than six beers per day. His doctor reported him to the state, which revoked his license. Matthew has the scoop.

Via HL, we learn that SKS rifles are on sale for $90.

Sorry for you readers in California, no gun rights for you.

Heh!

It seems military personnel returning from active duty are more likely to get concealed carry permits, according to a firearms instructor.

The other biased Washington paper writes:

Mr. Schumer said the bill would pass the House as well if a vote were allowed.

“We are simply asking that a vote be allowed on the House floor … and I would put money on it, that it would,” Mr. Schumer said.

Mr. Bush in the 2000 presidential campaign said he supported the ban and would sign an extension if it got to his desk.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has said there is no prospect of House passage.

“The House leaders have always been clear: The votes are not there in the House to extend the ban,” Mr. DeLay said last week.

Also, the article says:

Passage of the ban was cited by some analysts as a key factor in Republicans winning a majority in the House in 1994. Nearly every Southern Democrat who voted for the ban was ousted in midterm elections that year.

The National Rifle Association says the ban has done little to protect Americans and has infringed upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

The ban does not outlaw the sale of assault weapons; possession of machine guns has been regulated since 1934 by the National Firearms Act.

They were doing so well at reporting what the ban does, then they drop this whopper:

Rather, the 1994 law banned certain semi-automatic replicas that lawmakers said at the time could be easily altered to become fully automatic.

Gunner does some original reporting, which the media had gotten wrong.

Your tax dollars should apparently pay for manslaughter:

A judge ruled Tuesday that former Rep. Bill Janklow was on duty when he caused a deadly traffic accident, meaning taxpayers would have to pay for any civil damages in a wrongful-death lawsuit.

Via CAGW.

It’s true. Today, in a freak accident involving some Cucumber Melon Hand Soap from Bath and Body Works and an electric razor, I traveled a few months into the future. There wasn’t much exciting happening, so I turned on the television and caught the first debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry. Here is the actual transcript of what I saw before being sucked back through the space-time continuum:

Moderator: Mr. President, how do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses?

George Bush: That’s a good question. I inform them that today America is safer from terr… LOOK OVER THERE, FAGS!

Moderator: Senator Kerry, your rebuttal?

John Kerry: Fags, what fags? I don’t see any fags.

Rich Hailey has started his own business. It’s called PHD Publishers. What does he do?:

Welcome to PHD Publishers LLC, a company that exists for one reason; to help you publish your work! New publishing technology has finally brought true micro-publishing to the general public. Print-On-Demand (POD) processes allow small presses to publish more authors by eliminating extensive production costs, allowing them to reach markets that the large publishing houses cannot profitably serve. POD also means that the self-publisher no longer has to shell out thousands of dollars for a garage full of books, relying instead on just-in-time inventory control, resulting in lower costs and greater profits for the author

Heh!