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

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

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

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

Walsh called the proposed ordinance a “tragic mistake.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He won’t win but I admire the sentiment.

Today’s must read. And more here.

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

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

That issue is constitutional compliance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Start saving your receipts.

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

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

Yup.

The NYT on the corporate tax bill:

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

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

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

A letter to Fosters:

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

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

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

Jeff has his weekly check on the bias.

Another letter to the editor calls an editorial board out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article concludes with:

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

This is odd because the title of the article is:

Success of lapsed gun ban disputed

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the pending SCOTUS case:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m guessing he’ll be arrested:

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

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

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

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

And then he will cross it.

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

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

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

Another would be:

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

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

Odd:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alrighty, then.

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

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

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

However, she does get this bit right:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s how it starts:

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

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

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

The result of breed specific legislation.

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

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

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

The banned weapons were rifles.

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

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

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

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

Likewise, McFarlane saw it as bad public policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite my efforts at:

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

Making machine guns;

Refusal to give authorities ID;

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

Starting my own un-licensed business;

Setting my water heater to 130 degrees;

Writing a book that tells people not to pay taxes;

Importing lobster tails of less than 5.5 inches;

Growing orchids;

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

Carrying large amounts of cash;

Missing the occasional tax payment;

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

Building model rockets;

Doing home improvements without getting government permission;

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

Taking pictures of my nephews bathing to get developed;

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

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

Nevermind, Janet Jackson just showed her other boob.

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

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

Their responses would be:

Look over there, terrorists.

And fags.

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

Even our Democrats oppose tax increases and gun control:

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

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

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

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

[Snip]

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

Melton is an independent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, wait. I mean local media.

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

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

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