Jon Stewart was on Crossfire last week. Here’s a video. Here’s a transcript. I like The Daily Show and I think Jon Stewart is funny. He gets on the show and says to them:

STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you’re helping the politicians and the corporations. And we’re left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we’re too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you’re not too rough on them. You’re part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

He also called Carlson a dick and made fun of his bow tie. And, sorry to say for any bow tie wearing readers, anyone over the age of 12 who wears a bow tie and is not in a tux deserves to be made fun of. Actually, you probably deserve to be beaten up shortly after your mom cuts the crust off your PB&J.

Stewart assailed the media for their complacence in the media/corporate/political establishment, which is a good thing. He’s done that on his show before. He also called them both partisan hacks. And he was right.

However, Stewart was tossing rocks from his glass house. A while back, Kerry got some sand in his vagina or something and stopped doing media events because he didn’t want to address his Vietnam service (this marked the first time that I know of where he didn’t want to talk about his Vietnam service). Then, Kerry appears on Stewart’s show and, instead of tossing rocks, Stewart lobbed softballs. The Crossfire folks pointed this out. Stewart relied on his standard defense that his show is a comedy show, it follows puppets making prank calls, and that if the media wants to compare itself to his show then the media has some serious issues.

Bullshit, Jon. I’ve seen you on your show ask difficult questions and I’ve seen you drill your guests. I’ve seen you drill the media. Those are good things. The fact is Stewart gives certain folks a pass and these folks tend to be liberal. It’s your show, do what you want. I’ll still watch because it’s funny. The fact remains that you make fun of the Bush administration for all sorts of things (they probably deserve it) but the only thing you make fun of Kerry for is his boring, monotonous voice.

On last night’s show, for example, Stewart showed the result of the third debate was that all the media could talk about was the reference to Cheney’s lesbian daughter. Nevermind the other issues (even though they were scripted infomercials funded on the taxpayer dime). He will attack the media and the media deserve it.

I realize you have a show to run and that you’re nice to your higher profile guests. Stewart was, for example, always nice to RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie. But, if you’re going to tour news shows and criticize them, you should toughen up and maybe practice what you preach.

In a world of compromise, some don’t:

Investigators said Felecia Moss, 34, was followed when she drove her Lexus into her gated community. When she arrived at her home, a man who was driving a blue Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera pulled up and approached Moss as she got out of her car.

Moss said the man, who had a gun, demanded money from her. But when she showed him her empty wallet, he grabbed a cellular phone from her purse.

Moss then pulled out a 9mm Heckler and Koch semi-automatic handgun. The man scuffled with Moss, trying to get the gun. Without being able to get the gun, the man took off running.

Moss fired three shots at the man, and fearing he would return for his getaway car, she shot the tire out on the vehicle.

I hope she didn’t shoot at him when he was fleeing but glad she stopped him. Also, I love the fact she shot out the tires.

The Times Union has a decent piece on how neither side in the gun control debate wants to compromise. It also features this neat quote on sensationalism:

“Every time we start to do something sensible about gun control, somebody shoots John Lennon and then we legislate to that”

On the polarization of the gun issue:

When it comes to guns in America, experts agree that debate and legislation are driven largely by politics, paranoia, ignorance and media sensationalism — forces that rarely result in sensible public policy.

Those who study the issue say pro- and anti-gun forces are so polarized and concerned about protecting their ideological points they stymie credible policies that could reduce gun violence. Last month’s expiration of the federal assault weapons ban, they say, is a case in point.

Critics of the assault weapons ban — including some backers of gun control — say it had little or no effect on crime. Yet many gun control advocates dismissed any question about the law’s impact and instead blamed the law’s demise on what they call a grotesquely powerful gun lobby — led by the 4 million member National Rifle Association.

I would also add media ignorance to the list as most folks think the ban actually affects assault weapons. Additionally, a little fact checking was done and noted in the article:

Arulanandam cited last year’s Violence Policy Center report “Officer Down,” which said that one in five law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty is slain with an assault weapon. The statistic was repeated by major news organizations in writing about the law, but it’s not quite right.

The Violence Policy Center acknowledges that it included officers killed with weapons that were not covered by the assault weapon ban, calling it an insignificant difference.

So, they lied and think it doesn’t matter? Unfortunately, the article goes on to sing the praises of Americans for Gun Safety as a non-partisan, non-political common sense gun law organization. This is simply not the case. This organization is anti-gun but it tries to wrap itself in a moderate package. You can’t polish a turd.

What part of “mass graves” don’t you people understand?

A sign that I am getting either crazy or crotchety in my old age is that I apparently sound like Pat Buchanan.

Note to self: Self, pummel yourself repeatedly about the head and neck area with a medium sized herring* until this goes away.

* A red one would be nice.

With Bush getting the NRA endorsement, The Geek reports that the NRA lobbed some softballs at Bush. So does Jed. I do applaud the Bush administration’s recognition of the second amendment as an individual right. However, their actions speak louder than words. Support of the assault weapons ban is an affront to gun rights. For that, Bush lost my vote.

Why didn’t the NRA explain in the interview what the ban actually did?

Clayton Cramer tells me that I’m crazy or maybe my type are lefty trolls trying to get votes for Kerry. He also throws out the word purist as though it were an insult:

There is a slightly better than even chance right now that we can re-elect a guy who tells the soccer moms what they want to hear–but who lifted not one finger to get the assault weapon ban renewed–or we can elect Kerry and Edwards, who interrupted their campaigning to show up in the Senate, for the first time in many months, to vote for renewing the ban–and who would, if they could, replace it with a far more severe assault weapons ban.

I know that there are pro-gunners who are so focused on purity that they are going to vote for someone other than Bush. And what are they going to say next year, when President Kerry is pushing hard for a new, much tougher assault weapon ban, and gun registration, and support for lawsuits against gun makers again?

“I was pure!”

Great. That and 75 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. This is not a game. We are engaged in a struggle for not only our gun rights, but the survival of Western civilization. I can’t tell you what John Kerry will do as commander in chief, because he has given so many conflicting messages, many of which indicate that he will not take this war against Islamofascism seriously. I suspect that some of the “purer than thou” posters are actually anti-gunners trying to lower Bush’s vote totals

Then he warns not to buy into this nonsense, vote for Bush, and rails further against Kerry. I agree with Cramer that Kerry would be the worst possible thing for gun rights. He would push for new laws, including a more restrictive ban. I won’t vote for Kerry. At the same time, Bush supports the ban.

This amazes me. I assume that Bush and Kerry are not stupid people. Therefore, I am absolutely befuddled that Bush would support the ban because all the ban did was ban cosmetic features rifles can have. It was a ban on guns that look like military guns and that is all. Bush doesn’t have the decency to do his homework and actually look at what the ban did. Or he doesn’t care. He’s catering to soccer moms, who also don’t know what the ban did. Bush says he wants it but he didn’t push for it, likely because it could only cost him votes. Gun controllers will vote for Kerry. The anti-gun groups have already endorsed Kerry.

I am also amused that Kerry would support the ban, though it does fit his pattern that any gun control is good. I would think (assuming Kerry actually knows what the ban did) that he wouldn’t think it went far enough.

Neither man can talk honestly about the ban. The fact is, they are both wrong. Both are liars. And neither deserves my vote (or yours for that matter).

And even if it were only the ban, I can’t support Bush due to some civil liberties issues, big government, huge amounts of spending, and a few other things. He gets taxes and the war right. So, on election day, I’ll either not vote for president, vote third party (dunno which, yet), or write in my own name for a laugh.

The fact is, I live in a Bush state. He will handily win Tennessee. I may have a different opinion if I were actually in a state where the vote was close.

Noting that the Humane Societies are against breed specific legislation, critics of the proposed dog ban in Canada are calling the proposal unworkable for the reasons I’ve outlined here before:

Mr. Roney said that because pit bulls are cross-breeds, Canadian and American kennel associations don’t recognize them as an individual breed. “Most casual observers can’t tell the difference” between a pit bull and other breeds of dog that look similar, he said.

“Banning one breed which is very difficult to identify is going to lead to chaos,” Mr. Roney said. “That’s what our colleagues in Windsor, (which) recently introduced a breed ban, are telling us.”

City officials in Windsor “had to basically say that if a vet thinks it’s a pit bull, it’s a pit bull. And what we see in American jurisdictions are lawsuits after lawsuits as to whether an animal is a pit bull or not.”

“It’s been established … that breed-specific legislation is very difficult to enforce, if not impossible,” said Christine Hartig, a project officer with Ottawa bylaw services. “So I’m not sure how we’re going to do it, to be honest.”

Ban the deed, not the breed.

South Carolina authorities are cracking down on dog fighting, which is good:

The state began its crackdown on dogfighting in March at the request of animal welfare groups, which help authorities in investigations but in South Carolina generally cannot make arrests. The groups pledged about $60,000 to pay the initial salary and expenses of a SLED investigator for dogfighting, agency spokeswoman Kathryn Richardson said.

Even before the crackdown, animal welfare groups had conducted a training session on dogfighting for law enforcement agencies in 2003.

A month later, police made a key arrest in Orangeburg County. Sheriff’s deputies found more than 50 dogs living in fetid conditions. Many were chained to the ground; some had bloody cuts. Deputies also discovered a pit used for dogfights.

The article also addresses cultivating aggressiveness in the dogs:

Dog owners who train pit bulls to be aggressive run the animals on treadmills or have them chase cats on a machine that resembles a crude carousel. The carousel, known as a “jenny,” puts a cat just out of reach of the dog, which runs around the circle repeatedly trying to bite the cat.

For practice, some pit bull owners will throw weakened animals into an arena with a highly aggressive fighting dog.

A home video, seized by the Richland County Sheriff’s Department during a Columbia-area drug investigation in the past two years, graphically depicts the brutality of a fight.

The video shows pit bulls biting each other’s faces, necks and ears. The dogs pant heavily but continue to attack each other for about an hour.

A handful of people, including at least one child, sit around the makeshift fighting pit as the dogs’ handlers shout encouragement to the animals. One fan wears a T-shirt with a large picture of a pit bull on it.

The pit is a square arena, made from wooden boards and covered with what appears to be carpet. Blood stains the floor.

“Bite his head off! Bite him up, Rocco,” one man says to a large, brown dog as it chews the throat of a smaller, black pit bull.

When the fight ends, one fan pulls out cash that investigators say is presumably for a bet.

Authorities say betting pots easily can exceed $100,000.

Pretty brutal stuff.

This piece on the impact of guns on crime is not at all hysterical:

Jack Buttman can sell a 9 mm Glock pistol in less time than it takes to order breakfast in a diner. It’s even faster, he says, if the buyer is familiar with the one-page form for the federal background check and doesn’t stop to read the questions.

Buttman, owner of Butt’s Gun Sales in Billings, Mont., says he can send a buyer out the door in 12 to 20 minutes.

At any gun shop in the Capital Region, the same sale can take as long as six months. New York is one of 12 states that require some form of permit to buy a handgun, and even permit holders wait a week to 10 days to add another gun.

Earlier this year, New York state’s strict gun control laws earned a solid B+ from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The same report by the nation’s best-known gun control advocacy group, billed as a tool to educate Americans “about how their state’s leaders are doing on laws and policies that promote a reduction in gun violence,” gave Montana an F.

So, NY requires excessive fees and licensing and they only earn a B+? What gets an A? Confiscation? Continuing:

But does it mean citizens of the Big Sky State are more at risk of gun violence?

According to a University at Albany publication of 2001 FBI statistics, the most recent available, the percentage of violent crimes committed with guns in New York state was virtually the same as in Montana — 17.7 percent in New York and 17.4 percent in Montana.

The same is true for other states: Colorado and Connecticut, for example, have gun laws as different as New York’s from Montana’s, but they have about the same percentage of violent crime committed with guns.

I find that statistic a bit odd. What about non-gun related violent crime and homicide? It’s not unreasonable to conclude that a state with more lax gun restrictions makes intended victims less appealing since they have a means to defend themselves.

Apparently, New York has a shortage of Ruger 10/22s. Or pellet rifles.

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.