When Bill Clinton was running for president and his record of service avoidance came up, Democrats got all huffy and said "what does it matter." Well, President Bush did serve the required time in the National Guard and was honorably discharged. But suddenly, for DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe he's a "deserter" and not fit to run the country. And John Kerry brings up his own service almost every three sentences. But the intrepid Opinion Journal has found his hypocrisy out. From a speech Kerry made in 1992:

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Read the whole thing just to realize the suddenly desperate reek of self-righteousness the anti-Bush crowd has wrapped themselves in. And what, I might ask, is NOT honorable about serving in our National Guards? I think that's an insult to the millions of Americans who are serving now, or have served over the years. Suddenly Kerry, 12 years later, wants to use the issue to "divide America over who served and how." What crap.

Here's some good news in the otherwise bleak landscape of Second Amendment rights in Maryland. With the national "assault weapons" ban due to expire this Fall, Governor Ehrlich is opposing state Democratic lawmakers in MD who want to enact their own. From the Washington Post:

Ehrlich did not say whether he would veto the legislation if it makes it to his desk, but his communications director, Paul E. Schurick, said the Republican administration could never support the measure.

"My thoughts have always been to direct resources, time, attention and money to bad guys who have illegal guns and obviously the guns that cause crime," Ehrlich told reporters yesterday. "We devote our time, money and resources to things that work, not things that are politically correct."

With few signs that the Republican-controlled Congress plans to extend the federal ban on 19 such weapons beyond its Sept. 13 expiration date, Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to keep the ban in place in Maryland.

The measure would expand the definition of assault weapon from the 19 semiautomatic weapons included in the federal ban to 45 in Maryland. Already, anyone purchasing those 45 guns in Maryland is subject to a seven-day waiting period and a background check. State lawmakers banned 15 types of assault pistols in 1994.

This is sure to be a nasty battle between urban legislaters and rural ones. Ehrlich has waffled on this issue in the past. It is very important that Pro-2A residents put pressure on state lawmakers and especially the Governor to reject this politically-correct legislation. The Governor needs to know that he will be backed at re-election time if he should veto the bill. It's not easy being "conservative" in a liberal state like Maryland.

First of all, Enigmatic Musings has moved to much nicer digs.

So has Sketches of Strain, though I seem to have fallen off David's blogroll at his new site but I'm sure it's an accident.

---

I'm not planning to comment myself on the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that requires gay marriages because that's not a major focus of Alphecca. I'm glad it happened but there are much more coherent bloggers out there who can talk about it better. Discount Blogger has it just right.

Time once again to check out the bias in what stories and editorials about gun-control are linked to by Yahoo! I'm a bit late today because, well, frankly, I was at a Superbowl Party last night and we all got rather drunk rooting the Patriots on. That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it.

While the balance between anti-gun and pro-gun is heavily tilted towards the "anti" side, at least the 38th Superbowl had a good outcome. Tom Brady showed just why he's deserving of MVP status but I have to tell you: When it came down to field-goal kicker Vinatieri, after he had missed two field-goals, I was like "Oh Ghod, a Red Sox Jinx is spilling over to the NFL." But the guy did good, he was on target. He hit the bull's eye. Okay, enough metaphors. But isn't it interesting how so many "gun terms", expressions, have permeated our English language?

"He's a high-caliber salesman."

"He hit the mark."

"Take your best shot."

"She shoots from the hip."

"Wait till the smoke clears."

"He's firing blanks."

"She's quick on the draw."

"She's in the cross-hairs."

"He's a straight shooter."

"They're armed with the facts."

Et cetera. I'm sure you can think of a ton-more examples. America has been accused of having a "gun culture" that saturates our society and while it certainly does so in our language, it is also the culture of freedom. The Second Amendment has protected our First Amendment, and all the others. I was looking at our calendar and there's really no important holiday coming up this month (Okay, besides Valentine's Day) and I was thinking that it might be nice to have a day where we celebrate the dear and precious rights granted by our Bill of Rights. There's a "blank spot" on the calendar and I was thinking, what about the last Monday in February?

What if our schools spent that day, the last Monday of February, teaching and talking about the Bill of Rights that protects all of our freedoms in this great country of ours? Naturally, if I were a teacher I would concentrate on the First and Second Amendments, plus the right-to-vote amendments for women and people of color. I'd name the holiday "Freedom Day." It would be the day of joy and respect that seperates our nation from all the others of this world.

Look, I know this will never happen. The NEA might rejoice in the First Amendment (except for their restrictions on so-called "hate-speech") (You know, where bashing the Catholic Church and Jews is a 1st Amendment right but anything critical of Islam is "hate-speech." -- typical hypocrisy of the leftist-liberals.) And the average lock-step liberal teacher would NEVER support the 2nd Amendment even though that is what guarantees their jobs and lectures. Well, it was just a fantasy...

Okay, the win by the New England Patriots was wonderful. The gun-bias isn't. Let's get to it...

Utah has had a running battle over their concealed-carry law. The colleges don't want guns on their campuses. I actually do sympathize with their reasoning but the fact remains that there have been a lot of instances where an armed citizen could have prevented or at least cut short a crime spree in a house of worship. None the less, the Church of Latter Day Saints has again declared that their churches are "off-limits" to firearms, concealed or otherwise. From the Salt Lake Tribune:

The LDS Church said Friday it will impose a gun ban in its hundreds of houses of worship throughout Utah, invoking provisions of a state law that allow for criminal prosecution of violators.

"Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world," President Gordon B. Hinckley and his two counselors said in a statement. "The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law."

The statement was a repeat of a position church leaders staked out eight years ago. The difference now is they will take steps to back up the policy with the force of state law.

I think the Salt Lake Tribune was striving for fairness by quoting a lot of differing points of view but the overall tone came out as anti-gun.

There was nothing ambiguous about the position of the Madison.com (WI) pair of editorials against the Wisconsin Legislature's votes to override Gov. Doyle's veto of the concealed carry law newly enacted in Wisconsin. From their Capital Times website, here's a quote from the first:

There has been no outcry from Wisconsinites to overturn the state's 134-year-old ban on the carrying of concealed weapons. In fact, polls show most Wisconsinites oppose the proposal. And rightly so - Wisconsinites tend toward common sense and openness, and there is nothing sensible about letting people sneak around with guns hidden under their coats. Nor is there anything sensible about the provisions attached to the legislation that would close public records about who has obtained a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

So if Wisconsinites are not clamoring for this legislation, who is?

The Washington-based National Rifle Association lobby, that's who.

"...letting people sneak around with guns hidden under their coats. ..." Well there's an unbiased assessment if I ever heard one. (You liberals reading this should note that THAT was sarcasm.) I wonder who they think the state senators who voted for this legislation represent? Obviously, since they want to get re-elected, they must be voting the wishes of their constituents. And WHO does the NRA represent? I mean besides the 4.5 million members who pay them to lobby for their interests? Would the Capital Times have also pointed out that the NEA represents and lobbies for teachers' agendas?

This is hypocrisy of the first level. If the dairy farmers of Wisconsin had lobbied for a bill favoring farmers, would the Capital Times have stated that they were in the "hip pockets" of cows?

Then, two days later, they print this op-ed:

We keep being told that Wisconsin is one of only a handful of states that don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons. So what? The practical wisdom of Wisconsinites is one of the reasons we love this state. Those smart citizens -- that is, the vast majority not whipped into a frothy panic by gun rights lobbyists -- have repeatedly said we don't need to carry hidden weapons to feel safe. By the way, there was no shortage of rifles and shotguns in this state the last I checked, and no one threatening to take them away from their law-abiding owners.

So anyone who believes in our Bill of Rights and thinks they should be able to protect themselves and their families is obviously NOT SMART or PRACTICAL. This is the typical pose of the elitest liberal garbage that infects our American way of life. You don't agree with my leftist, "trust the government" view so you must be a stupid idiot. This op-ed by a psychophant named Judy Ettenhofer is the perfect reason why no matter HOW bad Bush is, the Democrats will not regain the White House this November. They (sick animals such as Judy) want the U.S. to adopt the fascist, authoritarian practices of Singapore and Syria and Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

You know: Women are garbage. You will all eat what WE feed you. You will think what WE tell you to think. You will say only what WE allow you to say. The State will protect you. And even though we don't, we will anyway and you will have to rely on us. You will only watch what WE think you should watch on TV. Sorry, no smoking. Sorry, no literature unless WE approve of it and it proclaims the glory of our regime. You are not allowed to think. WE will think for you... Etc.

That is the world Judy would like all of us to live in.

From Keep and Bear Arms comes this Cox.net story of much better news:

An east Valley man is behind bars, facing four counts of burglary after he he broke into a Mesa home and was captured by the homeowner. Mesa Police say early Thursday morning, they received a 911 call from a homeowner who said he had caught someone breaking into his home. When police arrived, the homeowner told them he had been sleeping when he heard a noise. He got his gun and confronted 24-year-old Bryan Varro Temple inside his home and handcuffed him and called police. The homeowner said he had been burglarized 3 prior times within a two-week period and when questioned by police, Temple admitted to committing the prior 3 burglaries...

And that's how it works folks. An armed society is able to defend itself and keep the mutants at bay. And think about this: This armed citizen caught and held this thug so the police could scoff him up and take him to jail. This saved the police the expense and manpower of searching for clues, tracking down, and maybe, just maybe capturing this criminal. That's a lot of bucks the town saved because of the actions by an armed citizen.

And from the anti-gun group Americans for Gun Safety comes this survey on the Democratic candidates' positions on gun control. Not surprisingly, AGS actually thinks their positions are "moderate."

I've given my thoughts on all this before. I don't like George W. Bush. He spends more money than a drunken sailor. He's stated that he would support an extension of the "assault weapons" ban. He wants to close the phony "gun show loop hole." And he's done nothing to encourage and move through congress the bill protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuits all though he claims to support it.

I've already let you all know here my thoughts on John Kerry. I wrote this post 15 months ago about fake, phony, fraud, anti-gun Kerry. This is a guy who supports the Million Moms March. This is a bastard who would deny all of you the right to defend yourselves from criminals. Needless to say, hell will freeze over before I cast my vote for an anti-American, anti-Bill of Rights candidate like this.

And regulars here know I've shown that Wesley Clark is also anti-gun.

I've talked about Howard Dean. He supports the bills President Bush does, but otherwise he leaves it up to the states.

Joe Lieberman is, in my opinion, a good and decent guy. I wish he was doing better in the polls and primaries. He's not great on gun control issues but to his credit there's this exchange from the May 3rd Democratic Debate in SC, reported by Issues2000.Org:

Q: In the 2000 campaign, Al Gore had a proposal for the licensing of all new handguns bought by gun owners. Anyone who wanted to buy a new handgun had to get licensed. Will you support that proposal in this campaign?

LIEBERMAN: I do not support that proposal. I have never supported such a proposal.

Q: But you were part of the ticket.

LIEBERMAN: Gore came out with that position before I came on to the ticket. The issue never really came up. Al Gore said to me when I got on the ticket, "Don't change anything about yourself, that's why I chose you."

American citizens have a right to own firearms. It is no more unlimited than any other right that we have. The laws that we pass ought to concentrate on stopping criminals and children and others who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Licensing, registration, in my opinion are bad ideas and violations of that fundamental right.

Look folks, I do know that Lieberman supports some gun control that I don't like but I will give credit where it's due. That last paragraph above is pretty powerful. Does that mean I would vote for him? He is about where Bush is on gun control although I do believe he is against the bill shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits. That's a negative for me. But choosing a leader is about more than one issue. Lieberman is the only candidate besides Bush who supports defending our nation against terrorists. That is a gigantic plus in his favor. I wish he were doing better. Is it because he's Jewish? Because he's not physically tall and "presidential?" I don't know. I just wish there were a strong and good Democrat challenging Bush so we had a real choice. I'd hate to have to vote for Bush just because he was "not as bad" as any of the others. And deep down inside, I know that Lieberman is a hell of a lot smarter and fairer than Bush.

John Edwards is a smart and likable guy. But there is virtually nothing on his website about gun control. All I could really find out about his position was here:

Q: How will your gun stance play among Southern voters?

EDWARDS: I grew up in the rural South. Everyone around me hunted, everyone had guns. I respect and believe in people's Second Amendment rights. That does not, however, mean that somebody needs an AK-47 to hunt. It does not mean that somebody who's been convicted of a violent crime should be able to walk out of prison, walk across the street and buy a gun. It does not mean that we shouldn't take every step that we can take to keep guns safe and keep guns out of the hands of kids. So, my belief is, first, I defend people's Second Amendment rights, but I don't think it's without limit.

Q: What federal gun control measures you would propose?

EDWARDS: I think we should extend the Brady Bill, which is set to expire. I think that we need to close forever the gun-show loophole, [to avoid criminals] buying a gun. I think it does make sense to have trigger locks for the purpose of keeping guns safe from children.

And:

"It's very important for us as Democrats to understand that where I come from guns are about a lot more than guns themselves," said John Edwards. "They are about independence. For a lot of people who work hard for a living, one of the few things they feel they have any control over is whether they can buy a gun and hunt. They don't want people messing with that, which I understand."

So he mouths the same legislation that the other Democrats do. Remember though, he's a trial-lawyer. Obviously he isn't going to support any legislation protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuits. Sorry, but I don't trust him.

So where does that leave us? With not much at all. Even Bush has caved in on some issues. As I said several months ago, I'm a voter without a candidate.

---

So here's what a few of the pro-2A bloggers are chatting up:

Say Uncle has more about the Democratic gun control positions.

My buddy James Rummel at Hell in a Handbasket is the historian for us gun-nuts. Here's one example of why.

And on a personal note to Lay Lines, I am healing up fine, and thank you for your well wishes. From one old-timer to another...

Kevin at The Smallest Minority reports on something I've harped about so much: the slow response time of cops. Folks, I've yakked about this before. The cops can't protect you. All they can do is mop-up the blood and call for the coroner. Your defense is up to YOU. That is what the framers of this great country knew so long ago. They even created a special right, the Second Amendment, just so you could.

There's much more but I'm already late with this report and so I'm going to put it up and hope for the best later in the week. Granted, a short report this week but it's not like I'm being paid by the word... Thanks to all of you for stopping by!