Say it ain’t so.

But wait, there’s more.

It’s a sad day when you cannot trust a religious man like Al.

Gentlemen’s Top Cuts is now officially open for business. Here’s their press release:

“Knoxville has several good salons to pick from, if you’re a woman. We felt that it was time for men to have a place of their own place to be pampered.” states Mike Huff, co-owner. “We’ve created a sexy and unique Vegas-influenced ambiance, hired some of the region’s best talent, and are making haircuts something men can look forward to.”

Aside from quality hair care, Gentlemen’s Top Cuts will provide full spa services. Massages, manicures, pedicures, facials, waxing and paraffin dips await those needing to relax and unwind. During the first few weeks after opening, the salon will offer all services except for massages. A decision has been made to stage the service offerings to guarantee exceptional customer satisfaction.

Here’s my review of my sneak peak of the place.

And here’s a list of past posts with some of the controversy about the place.

Angry Mouse over at DKos:

Liberals love the Constitution. They especially love the Bill of Rights. They love all the Amendments.

Except for one: the Second Amendment.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally. In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of “gun nuts”? Why do they complain about the “radical extremist agenda of the NRA”? Why do they argue for greater restrictions?

Why do they start performing mental gymnastics worthy of a position in Bush’s Department of Justice to rationalize what they consider “reasonable” infringement of one of our most basic, fundamental, and revolutionary — that’s right, revolutionary — civil liberties?

Why do they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote Democrat? Why are they so dismissive of approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns?

And why is their approach to the Second Amendment so different from their approach to all the others?

Well, if conversations on this blog about the issue of guns are in any way indicative of the way other liberals feel, maybe this stems from a basic misunderstanding.

So, allow me to attempt to explain the Second Amendment in a way that liberals should be able to endorse.

He’s getting a ribbing in comments there from the Tolerant Left. The Tolerant Left: Turning liberals into libertarians one gun owner at a time! Ask this guy.

Via Jay.

Congressional Research Service report on Heller is here.

I thought it was illegal for them to possess weapons: Under pressure to meet combat needs, the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions last year than in 2006, including some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.

Someone call Eric Zorn a Waaahmbulance:

I’ve written several posts and column items recently on the issue of gun control — the most recent one asking for ideas from both sides about compromises that gun-rights people and gun-ban people might be able to live with.

And each time it has struck me how tiny, uninspired and vague the response has been from those who favor new laws to try to keep guns out of the hand of evildoers.

While the gun-rights folks weigh in quickly and forcefully with links to studies and detailed arguments, the gun-ban folks are mostly quiet. The suggestions seem to be mostly on the order of Police Supt. Jody Weis’ call in today’s paper to ban AK-47 rifles, which, as I have argued before, is beside the point, at best.

If gun-control advocates don’t want to or can’t join the conversation here, I’m prepared to shut it down as the futile exercise it may well be.

Oh my god, you mean we calmly refute your talking points with facts, figures, cites and logic? And take issue when you guys just parrot what an anti-gun group tells you? Another Chicago columnist learned this lesson a bit back. And see here. Mr. Zorn, meet the internet graveyard of anti-gun activists.

We’re passionate and ready. And, at the click of a button, I can send you all the Reasoned Discourse^tm you can handle.

This is why we win. Sure, it’s like whack-a-mole in that we can’t stop or we lose. But there’s no shortage of us to counter your emotion-laden, feel good nonsense. That and, outside a few locations of which Chicago is one, gun control is just not very popular.

The anti-gun side even uses the wealth of the Joyce Foundation to pay people to appear as though there is a grassroots gun control movement when there is not. The pro-gun side does not pay me. I do it because I believe in it. Compared to your side which has to shell out $650K to an ad agency to set up a fake network of fake anti-gun activists.

Rusty points out you answered your own question.

Sebastian says we should thank Al Gore for his internets.

Update: May be reading the piece wrong. See update here.

Andy notes his personal experience with thieves. Some developers I know had several tens of thousands of dollars of copper stolen from a one of their sites. And it was in the ground. I guess it’s good money to warrant people getting that creative to steal it.

Sebastian says gun owners should come out of the closet.

In England:

A “why bother?” economy has been created in Britain which has left thousands with no motivation to work, a report published today concludes.

Successive governments have encouraged a welfare culture that has left every family facing a £1,300 bill because the poor stay poor, it claims.

The findings by the public services think tank Reform suggest that increased welfare dependency has made it more difficult for those on the lowest incomes to do better.

Kim du Toit:

my favorites are the “agony” columns, in which (usually-female) journalists attempt to answer people’s questions and provide answers to personal problems, in the same manner, I suppose, in which celibate Catholic priests are supposed to solve marital and sexual problems or politicians cure us of corruption.

Ouchie.

Bitter has the skinny on various non-profit set ups. Will be important for learning about how various anti-gun groups work.

A couple of guns made from wood.

Must have been hit with a .50 caliber.

I kid.

My sources tell me that Kansas is soon to be friendly to machine gunners.

Update: News source:

Starting July 1, Kansans will be able to own machine guns, other fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns and silencers.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed a bill Monday legalizing their possession.

Looks like the endorsement from the American Hunters and Shooters Association is not quite paying off.

The other day, I was trying to think of that psychological term where a person attributes their own unacceptable traits or feelings to other people. Turns out, I was wrong and douchebag is not a psychological term at all. It’s called projection.

Left of the Dial: I say if you can’t hold your liquor maybe you shouldn’t be packing a weapon.

To lawfully drink and to lawfully carry a firearm in our state, you must be 21 years of age.

And report a gun crime in their city:

At his residence at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York, Zalmay Khalilzad displays a banged-up AK-47 assault rifle from Saddam Hussein’s arsenal: a souvenir from a war Khalilzad supported and a regime he helped topple.

Possession of an unregistered NFA weapon is illegal.

A new letter on suppressors and repair here. Don’t read too much into it because they’ll change their mind next week, not tell you, then arrest you for it.

A correction at the bottom of an article in the New York Times:

Because of an editing error, an article on Tuesday about efforts by state lawmakers across the country to pass new restrictions on guns referred imprecisely to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. While it supports some firearms restrictions and enforcement of legal regulations on gun ownership, it is not an “antigun group.”

Somebody wrote that with a straight face?

Even the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership realizes gun control is a loser!

Actual headline: Clinton, Obama chase elusive gun votes.

Uhm, they’re not elusive. Just be pro-gun.

Mag prices to go up 40%? Uh, why?

Gun bloggers at the 2A Blog Bash will get to hang with reps from FNH USA, makers fine PSH-inducing products like the FiveseveN and the PS90.

And, hopefully at this shindig we’ll be witnessing the release of the civilian version of the FN SCAR?

Chris has a long read on the issue. Pack a lunch.

I concur:

ATF has no business attending gun control news conferences

Should a federal agency advocate a position on gun control? I think not. In fact, I think I’ll call my congress monkey and tell him that.

Update: Press coverage here.

In SC, handgun carry permit data to be kept secret. I’d like to thank the Tennessean and Christian Trejbal at the Roanoke Times for helping get this legislation passed.

No, really:

Colt’s grip on military rifle criticized

M4 does poorly in Army’s own test

A look at combat rifles

Update: BTW, an issue I’ve addressed before is that there is no motivation for American gun makers to get it in the military rifle game since there’s no civilian market for such weapons due to our gun laws making their possession illegal.

Tam:

The reason I loathe the Dem’s candidates is because of their politics, not their genetics.

Judging from my referral logs this weekend, it seems like the rest of the world was figuring out that Barack More Cowbell Obama used to be on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. The Politico notes what we gun bloggers have known for years now:

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week.

LaBolt stressed that the foundation, which has assets of about $935 million, doesn’t take “detailed policy positions,” but rather uses its grants to “fuel a dialogue about how to address public policy issues like reducing gun violence.”

Really? You mean paying millions of dollars to fake grassroots groupsis designed to fuel dialogue? How about we look at one of their flagship groups that got $650,000: Gun Guys. And this group is an utter failure at even generating dialogue.

At UT.