I've always thought my masthead photo from the Hubble telescope looks like a pair of glowering eyes but my buddy at Say Uncle says it looks like boobs. Go figure...

Okay, I've done enough blathering for the week. Lots of original posts this week and then, today, some links to the wonderful insights of my friends. So, I'll see you all back here Monday morning for my "Weekly Check" and until then, have a great weekend and my genuine wishes and hopes are for all of you to be well, happy, and have good fortune. Thanks for stopping by.

You know, us evil queers are not only marrying, but as Mike Silverman is reporting, we're also adopting PETS!!! Yup! It's awful and it has to be stopped. Perhaps you can comment on his blog about this scourge.

---

Over at On The Third Hand Mamma Bear posts a letter she wrote about the silliness of President Bush's declaration that we somehow need a constitutional amendment against "gay marriage." As usual, she's right-on-target. And Kathy Kinsley correctly points out that this whole issue should be a "states' rights" issue. Remember the Federalist Papers? Apparently the right-wingers don't.

---

Robert Prather offers his thoughts on the "gay marriage" bru ha ha. As usual, he is correct. And remember folks, all of those right-wingers didn't protest or even give a "rat's-ass" that some states have been allowing death-row inmates to marry or that half of all marriages end in divorce. What total hypocrisy!

---

Kinayda asks an interesting question about the infallibility of the Bible. Perhaps you'd all like to go there and offer your comments?

---

And on a hugely different subject, David Kaspar is asking why, if things are so bad in Iraq, then why aren't the citizens fleeing? Maybe it's because they've had a taste of freedom...

---

It's rather obvious around here that I'm no fan of John Kerry. Neither is Renpro. Just head over there and start reading, or check-out this post.

---

Lastly, but not leastly, one of my favorite weird new friends is UnderCaffeinated who has lots of strange things like this report on scum-bag Donald Trump who, according to reports, should fire himself. And then, to pick yourself up, a strange etude to coffee...

A day off, it's great because I finally have some time to cruise around and visit my friends. I'm also cleaning up my "blogfriends" blogroll to fix old links of folks who've moved, or (unfortunately) delete those who's owners seem to have quit blogging.

Blogging on a daily basis is tough. Let me re-phrase that, knowing that you are expected to put up posts every day is tough. Some do make it seem effortless but I'm sure they feel some sort of pressure to put-up something even when they'd rather lie on the couch and watch the TV, or they're busy as hell and really don't have time for it.

When I first started Alphecca, there was -- of course -- the adrenaline rush of hoping to be read by the whole world, linked to by everybody, and mostly getting to "publish" your views on life as we know it. It took me a year to get over that. I still have things I need to say, and I still (as every blogger does) have the need to be recognized and read, but I have learned that you can take a day or two off here and there and still have folks visiting.

I even got up the guts a few weeks ago to finally take a vacation from blogging and my home. And when I came back, my blog, my friends (that's YOU -- my dear readers) were there to welcome me back. Believe me when I tell you that my brief (9 day) hiatus did a world of good for me. I recommend it to all.

Most bloggers put up this-and-that posts as the inspiration comes to them. So do I. But I also have lots to say and I put up those posts too. Alphecca is my megaphone.

But I also have a year-and-a-half history of putting up EVERY WEEK my "Weekly Check on the Bias" big-ass post about bias in the media against guns and the Second Amendment. And like any columnist at a newspaper or really anywhere else, I feel the pressure to produce, make it good, make it link-able, make it worth reading. Sitting down at the computer every Sunday evening I feel genuinely intimidated to do my best. Since it (the post) is heavily linked-to, I have to keep it clean (unlike my usual rants) and coherent, interesting, with a bit of humor thrown in. It takes me about 4-5 hours to write my "weekly report."

I'm not complaining, just that I hope you understand that I understand the the pressure of having to perform on cue. And I appreciate that many folks start a blog with huge hopes and aspirations, only to find that "the daily grind" can be intimidating.

I think that this experience has also given me an appreciation of performers (on stage, on screen, on TV, and yes -- in print) who HAVE TO be bright, cheerful, and ready to continually give their best on cue to the audience or camera or fans.

So I feel a special sympathy towards bloggers who fall by the wayside. None of us make any, or at least any significant money from blogging. We do it because we have huge egos and we love the dim spot-light. But we (should) also know that our sites can (and will) be replaced in a New York Minute by someone else if we exit the scene.

I guess that's why -- from the very first week -- I have made an effort to say "thanks" to all of you wonderful readers; visitors. Some folks (bloggers) claim that they don't care if anyone reads them or not. I think that's bullshit. You don't blog unless you really hope (like ANY performer) to attract an audience. Otherwise, you could just write your thoughts down with pen-on-paper on a spiral notebook and stick it in your dresser drawer. So spare me that silliness.

So... Therefore, in conclusion... Let me just take this opportunity to say:

Thanks for stopping by!

I did not know that the United States Army Air Corps was remade into the US Air Force after WW2. James at Hell In a Handbasket does know that and has an interesting twist on their current relationship (Army and Air Force.) Also an interesting post about the demise of the Commanche helicopters.

---

Jason at Song of the Suburbs is ranting all over the place about gay marriage. Really.

---

And Greg at The Hobbesian Conservative is going to invest in sin and sleeze because that's where the money is. And probably the most fun too.

---

And by-golly, Jay Solo is celebrating his 1st Blogiversary with a song in his heart. Congratulations Jay!

John Lott, Jr. and Grover Nordquist have an op-ed at Fox News about how tenuous passage of the bill granting some protections to the firearms industry (from frivolous lawsuits) is, what with the attempts by liberals to attach all sorts of amendments to it. Read the whole thing of course but here's the money line:

Burdening these needed legal reforms with regulations that cause only other problems accomplishes only one goal: the legislation will be defeated and the lawsuits seeking to eliminate guns will proceed.

---

The Missouri supreme court has ruled that the new concealed carry law is legal and can go into effect. [via InstaPundit] Dave Kopel writes in the NRO Corner that the court rejected suits by various anti-gun groups seeking to block the new law. Here's a quote:

The gun prohibition groups made the preposterous argument--with the trial judge in Saint Louis accepted--that the constitutional clause forbids concealed carry under all circumstances. The Missouri supreme court rejected this absurd claim. The court wrote: "There is no constitutional prohibition against the wearing of concealed weapons; there is only a prohibition against invoking the right to keep and bear arms to justify the wearing of concealed weapons." A contrary decision would have made it illegal for even police officers to carry concealed guns.

So that's some good news there.

---

The Countertop Chronicles has been doing a fine job (also) of reporting on all the action in the U.S. Senate over the various amendments being proposed for the firearms/lawsuit bill. Just head there and start scrolling. He includes lists of who voted for what -- a good thing to keep on hand for reference when some of these senators are up for re-election. Good job!

When I wrote my "Alternate Universe" piece a couple days ago I had no idea how ironic it would be. NBC's Today Show is so fucking biased that all morning they've (no doubt goaded by the coastal elites) featured first, the release of the Columbine Task Force report (another coincidence?) and as I sit here, Jim and Sarah Brady are being interviewed by Matt Lauer who are raising all the fear mongering over the gun maker liability-shield bill, the gun show "loophole" and "assault weapons" bills, and on and on.

And I understand that Katie is in Chicago (the city with the highest murder rate in the country despite a ban on law-abiding citizens being allowed to own a gun) and will be interviewing Mayor Daley about his efforts to combat crime. (You can stop laughing now...) What do you think they will talk about? Gun control. Still laughing? This is obviously a determined effort by the shits who run NBC including head-shit Zucker to rally and mobilize the anti-gun forces we face in this country. You can bet they'll be phoning and faxing their senators. See the post below for what you can do for our side.

And of course, NOT ONE person from our side is represented or given a chance to present our side of the issue. Total, unmitigated bias. How much you want to bet Big Media (ever liberal) is making a concerted effort to destroy the Second Amendment and influence the events in the Senate?

Dammit.

As the bill to give gun makers some protection against frivolous lawsuits comes up for a full vote in the Senate, lawmakers and the NRA are scrambling to attach various amentments to it including extending the phony "assault weapons" ban. This is a betrayal by the NRA, by Senator Frist, and others. Several Pro-2A bloggers are working around the clock to track what is happening, and are making the calls and sending the faxes and emails to pressure the NRA and several key senators to reject these amendments.

Rather than duplicate their efforts, I urge you to visit Publicola and Say Uncle. Both these bloggers are working overtime to keep up with the rapidly developing events. Check in with them constantly. Publicola has the latest info on the committee ajournment in this post. And from the senate release:

Possible Amendments

Craig/Manager's Technical Amendment
Senator Craig intends to offer an amendment for three narrow purposes: (a) ensure that appellate courts have the power to dismiss qualified cases pending before them by including language adopted by the House of Representatives to accomplish that end; (b) conform to House language ensuring that this legislation applies to qualified lawsuits seeking injunctive relief or other remedies as well as those seeking monetary damages; and (c) tighten the definition of "possessory offenses" by describing it more precisely so that it does not create an unintended loophole in the bill.

Extension of Semi-Automatic Gun Ban
Senator Feinstein may offer an amendment to repeal the 2004 sunset on the Clinton ban on certain semi-automatic weapons. Senator Feinstein has offered S. 1034 to this effect, which also includes a ban on importing certain "ammunition feeding devices."

S. 1807 -- "Gun Show" Background Checks
Senator McCain or Senator Reed may offer S. 1807 as an amendment. This amendment would regulate firearm transfers at special firearms events. The amendment further prohibits any person from operating a special firearms event without notifying the Attorney General and sets forth (1) responsibilities of special firearms events operators and firearms licensees and transferors other than licensees at such events, including with regard to criminal background checks; (2) special firearms event license application requirements; and (3) penalties for violation of this Act.

Concealed-Carry Laws for Law Enforcement
Senator Campbell may offer an amendment to exempt qua lified current and former law enforcement officers from state laws that prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns ; this is a provision embodied in S. 253, which has been reported from the Judiciary Committee and has 67 cosponsors.

Amendment re: Qualified Civil Liability Action Definition
An amendment may be offered to clarify the meaning of "qualified civil liability action" to require in certain circumstances that the plaintiff alleging a criminal or unlawful act actually state with particularity the federal and state statutes, ordinances, or regulations allegedly violated.

And let me tell you this, Feinstein's version of the "assault weapons" ban is far more sweeping than the present one. It also includes a provision to ban all high-capacity magazines irregardless of when they were manufactured.

You MUST email or phone your senators TODAY and TOMORROW and MONDAY and just keep doing it because I'll tell you this: That's what the gun-grabbers and Brady Bunch are having their minions doing.

Furthermore, you MUST call the NRA and let them know clearly that if they cave in and allow these amendments to be attached to the bill, you will not renew your membership. Hit them in the wallet. They're already hurting for money and if enough of us make clear that we will abandon them -- maybe they'll show some backbone.

We are being sold down the river. The only oars we have right now are our telephones and our membership dollars. Use them!

Remember that you can also find a lot of information at the Keep and Bear Arms site. and Geek With a .45 has too and has an example of a letter you can write.

Regulars here already know that the Alphecca R&D department has a time-machine. (See here and here.) But now, our top scientists have come up with a new machine that surfs the "multiverse." They'll be traveling the layers of the fabric of the... Oh, whatever the hell you call it and with special cameras will bring back what they find. So this is the start of a new, occasional series of posts entitled:

Trip #1, the alternate media...

The scene is the NBC Today Show and we join the broadcast just as Kerry Sanders finishes a report on a woman who was killed by a push-in robber...

Katie Couric: Thank you for that distressing report.

Matt Lauer: It's really a shame. If she had only had a firearm to protect herself, this trajedy might never have happened.

Katie: I know, Matt, wasn't it just last week that Mayor Bloomburg was urging all residents to arm themselves?

Matt: Yes, we covered that in my interview with him. Even the police department has opened a drive-through concealed-carry permit kiosk for quickly issuing these licenses to all law abiding citizens. I carry a Glock 22 myself. Not that I feel I really need it but you never know.

Katie: I tote a stainless-steel Smith and Wesson model 65 myself.

Al Roker: Ooh, sweet -- and it won't rust in all this rain we've been having...

Matt: And I was just reading an editorial in the New York Times urging all Americans to exercise their right to bear arms.

Katie: Well anyway, coming up next -- The Gadget Guru, fresh from re-hab, with the latest in meth-lab equipment...

Fine, so I didn't say it would be the wittiest series I've ever posted...

In person I am disparaged for my fondness for puns. Middle Age Madness joins the club. (See Thoughts for the Day -- I can't find a link.) (Oh just read everything, it's all good.)

I don't comment much on gay issues here and I'm not really going to now with the gay marriage brou ha ha. I've spoken about it at length in a lengthy interview last November that I just know Dean Esmay will edit and put up one of these *cough* days. Of course, I wrote that stuff before recent events.

Anyway, plenty of others are yakking it up. The Countertop Chronicles offers his take on it.

Eric Scheie makes an interesting comparison between gun control and penis control. He's not for either of them.

---

Indigo Insights is encouraging you (with a couple of forwarded emails) to buy stamps. I agree. It's the new Postal Service "Fund the Cure" stamps that help support breast cancer research.

---

Lana from Live From the Guillotine is also talking about family and the influence they have on future generations.

---

Update 2/26: Just found out that Dean and Rosemary are going through some personal horror-show stuff right now. Head over and offer them any moral or financial support that you can. My prayers go out to them.

As with all giant news gathering organizations, Alphecca has swarms of reporters out in the field covering the 2004 elections. Our man Brice caught up with Senator John Kerry at a recent campaign event.

Brice: Thanks for taking a few moments to talk with us, Senator Kerry.

Kerry: My pleasure Brice. You probably didn't know this but I served in Viet Nam. One of my men was named Brice. I think he was gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that mind you as long as they don't try to get married or something.

Brice: Yes well-

Kerry: Did you serve in Viet Nam? Or "Nam" as we patriotic Democrats called it?

Brice: I was born in 1981.

Kerry: Yes but did you serve there?

Brice: Senator Kerry, President Bush has criticized your voting record on Defense spending. Specifically, he's said that you have voted against almost every weapons system our troops are now using to win the war on terror including the B-2 Stealth bomber, the B-1, the F-15 and F-16 fighters, the M1 Abrams tank, the Apache helicopter and the Patriot missile.

Kerry: Is he saying that I'm unpatriotic? Since when do Republicans who haven't served in Viet Nam have the right to question my military service? I'd like to debate him about service in Viet Nam. I served, you know.

Brice: I don't think he questioned your service record; he questioned your voting record in the Senate.

Kerry: It's the same thing! Look, I've been taking swings at Bush for a year now and that's fair game because he didn't serve in Viet Nam. But when he starts questioning my voting record, well, that's just beyond the pale and veers into personal attack politics.

Brice: Senator Kerry, you voted for NAFTA in 1993 and you also voted for the current administration's trade agreements with Chile and Singapore -- much to the dismay of many Democrats at the time. Yet you now accuse President Bush of favoring free trade because you think it hurts American jobs.

Kerry: Let me tell you something Brice -- We all had jobs to do in Viet Nam. And the only trade we knew was a candybar for a pack of cigarettes or some hooche. I'd be happy to debate my war service with President Bush.

Brice: Your point being?

Kerry: I've got medals all over the place.

Brice: If you're referring to your Silver Star or Purple Hearts, I thought you threw yours away during an anti-war protest?

Kerry: Naaah... I threw away some other guy's medals.

Brice: As the front runner in the Democratic primaries, have you given any thought yet to a vice-presidential running mate?

Kerry: Brice, there are so many good choices out there who have -- like me -- served in Viet Nam.

Sen. Kerry on picking a running mate.

Brice: Senator Kerry, you voted for and supported the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to wage war in Iraq.

Kerry: Yes, but I didn't actually think he'd do it. I know something about war you know. I served in Viet Nam. Do you know what it's like, hiking for miles and miles through the hot steamy jungles of Viet Nam? Never knowing if your next step would be on a land-mine? Getting bitten by mosquitos the size of John Edwards...

Brice: So, Senator, you voted for the authorization to wage a war that you're against?

Kerry: Yes, and from now on, I think I'd like to be called Lieutenant Kerry.

Brice: Some of your critics have said that you flip-flop on the issues such as voting for the Patriot Act and Bush's education bill but now knocking those programs in stump-speeches.

Kerry: -Who? I don't flip-flop on anything. Do you know who I am? Let me tell you something Brice, I tend not to dwell on it or talk about it much but I served in Viet Nam and we had no time to flip-flop on anything. Anyone who says otherwise -- well, I'll be happy to debate them on my military service record. See those guys over there? That's my chorus of war veterans. They'll tell you I don't flip-flop. I was fighting for our country, our constitution, and our Bill of Rights.

Brice: Speaking of which, you're record shows you've voted for every single gun-control bill that has ever come your way. Yet you claim you support the Second Amendment.

Kerry: I do support the Second Amendment. I just don't think people should have guns. We had guns in Viet Nam you know. If someone wants a gun, join the Army.

Brice: You've gone on record as being opposed to gay marriages.

Kerry: That's right. I'm for all the people but we didn't have any same-sex marriages in Viet Nam.

Brice: Today, President Bush said he's in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. You'll support him on that?

Kerry: If he's for it, I'm against it. That's the Terry McAuliffe equation.

Brice: Isn't that a flip-flop?

Kerry: Do you know who I am?

Brice: Never mind. How do you feel about Ralph Nader entering the presidential race?

Kerry: Let me just say this, Brice, I believe in democracy and the right of the people to vote for whom they want to. We've seen what happened in Florida in 2000 when people were dis-enfranchised and dis-respected and didn't have their chads counted more than six or seven times. Every vote counts. There will be no coercion. The people should be heard. That's what I fought for in Viet Nam.

Brice: So you would welcome Nader on the November ballot?

Kerry: Fuck no! That freak cost Al Gore Florida. He could deprive some people of voting for me.

Brice: I notice that you sometimes curse on camera and also in your interview with Rolling Stone Magazine.

Kerry: Let me tell you something, when I was in Viet Nam, we cursed a lot. We cursed the food, the Viet Cong, the bugs, the-- Do you know how much trouble I had fitting my hair into the helmut?

Brice: Do you think the average American is looking for a leader who utters curses in public?

Kerry: Hell yes.

Brice: You've been on the campaign trail almost non-stop for months. Some say much of your support is simply folks who loathe Bush. Do you find people at the various stops excited about your policies?

Kerry: Brice, as soon as they hear that I fought in Viet Nam, you can almost see their eyes light-up.

A supporter gasps in astonishment upon
learning from Kerry that he's a
Viet Nam War veteran.

Brice: Could you perhaps tell us about some of the policy initiatives of a Kerry administration?

Kerry: Um, what?

Brice: You know, what are your plans for stimulating job growth, fixing Social Security, protecting America's borders, Medicare, education, the nation's infra-structure--

Kerry: I fought in the Viet Nam war. That's my platform.

Brice: I've listened to your speeches, watched your TV commercials, surfed your web site. Don't you think you might need to actually offer some substance? Some ideas?

Kerry: Hey, you can view my entire service record on my web site!

Brice: Well, thank you. You're dismissed, Lieutenant.

Les Jones has his Tuesday Gun Links up. He's also celebrating his one-year blogiversary. Congratulations Les!

It is possible that the Senate will -- this week -- be taking up the bill to protect gun makers and distributors from frivolous lawsuits caused by the criminal mis-use of their products. Well that's a good thing! Unfortunately, Senator Feinstein, who knows the bill has a good chance of passage, wants to sabatage it, or at least ammend it by attaching an amendment extending the phony "assault weapons" ban (AWB) and even expanding it.

AWB Sunset.com has been tracking the "assault weapons Ban" bill and reports that the forces that support it are mobilizing for a phone blitz today:

The anti-gun folks are asking their people to call between the following hours:

9:00 AM - 1:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
8:00 AM - 12:00 PM Central Standard Time
7:00 AM - 11:00 AM Mountain Standard Time
6:00 AM - 10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time

Call 202-224-3121 and ask for one of your Senators' offices (you'll have to call back to reach the other one).

Even if you've already called your Senators in the past few weeks, CALL AGAIN tomorrow. Be polite, but firm in your opposition to Feinstein's AWB renewal amendment. Please spread the word to everyone you know.

Several pro-2A bloggers are rallying the troops to fight this amendment. You should read all of each post but I'll give some quotes here. Let's start with Geek With A .45:

Accuse me of hyperbole if you want, but the bottom line is that the AWB threatens to unravel the whole cloth of our Republic.

What To Do About It:

You wrote your letter? Good! Write them again. Even if your rep is a schmuck. Let them know that they aren't appreciated.

Publicola expands on that:

1: Communicate with your congresscritter (especially your Reps as the Senate is damn near hopeless) & tell him/her that if the AWB gets passed then you will withdraw support from their party!

Most congrescritters figure that either your individual vote won't matter that much in their race (especially if their next election is over a year away), or they can vote to kill the AWB while their buddies who aren't up for re-election can pass it.

Tell them it's a Party thing - we get an extended or expanded AWB & the other Party gets your votes & your friends' votes as well. No excuses!

This might make them pressure their buddies into killing any AWB bills or amendments.

Next - & this is perhaps most important - tell the NRA that if the AWB passes in any form for any reason whatsoever that you'll drop them & switch all your donations to GOA, JPFO & other no compromise orgs. Tell them you'll also drop membership in their state affiliate & throw your local support & donations to local no compromise groups.

This will get them off their ass (hopefully) & make them act like the 800 lb. gorilla that everyone thinks they are.

The reason the NRA is so critical is because they have lobbyists who are more immediately convincing than a couple thousand or tens of thousands of letters from across the country.

Again, you should be reading their entire posts. Thanks also to Say Uncle for spreading this around.

Clayton Cramer is correct:

So what happens if the anti-gunners attach the assault weapon ban to the lawsuit prohibition? House Republicans won't let it go forward--and Bush won't have to make a choice that would upset gun owners. If somehow this combination bill did go forward, it would be the end of all hopes for the lawyers to make a killing with these lawsuits. Talk about creating bad blood between the ambulance chasers and the anti-gunners. We might even see the ambulance chasers put their financial interest ahead of their ideology, and try to kill the bill.

Feinstein and Schumer and all the other folks who oppose our precious Bill of Rights are trying an "end-around" on us. I always say the best defense is a good offense (okay, LOTS of people say that...)

Find the email addresses you need, the phone numbers you need, and roll-up your sleeves and get to work. I'll be doing it from my office today. No Fucking Surrender.

Time once again to take a look at the bias exhibited on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page. It is, alas, no surprise to anyone I'm sure that they link to very few stories and editorials that present firearms ownership in a good light.

This week's graphic is the Bill of Rights, direct from the National Archives website.

Even with some enhancing with Photoshop, you can see that it is badly faded. Unfortunately, in real life in our country, so are many of our rights. Certainly the left continues to assail the Second Amendment (and in an aside, they also -- despite their claims -- are laying seige to the First Amendment as anyone who's spent time on a college campus can attest to.)

I'm sure you'll be shocked to know that the Washington Post takes a dim view of Maryland Governor Ehrlich and others' refusal to extend (and expand) the state's own "assault weapons" ban. This editorial makes no attempt to present both sides and I suppose that's how editorials -- at least at WAPO -- are. But check out this quote:

THOUGH THERE is no sensible, compelling reason for a civilized society to be loading up with assault-style weapons -- arms that sportsmen do not need -- Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) and state lawmakers who answer to the call of the National Rifle Association favor the free flow of these arms. And though several surveys over the years have shown that most Marylanders support a ban on such weapons, opponents are working to defeat a measure that would keep a state ban in place if Congress fails to extend a federal ban to expire Sept. 13. A critical vote -- which could be decided by one swing senator in Annapolis -- is set for today or tomorrow in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

First of all, maybe sportsmen don't need them (though actually, I believe the US Olympic Shooting Team does use some of the guns on the list) but they don't have to need them. Maybe they just want them and the Bill of Rights says they have a right to own them. Furthermore, "sportsmen" aside, some folks living in crime infested urban areas might feel they need them as protection against the mutants who already have their own.

And maybe Gov. Ehrlich and the state senators who are against the measure realize that as a matter of fact, these "assault weapons" are -- cosmetics aside -- just like any other firearms and the list of banned weapons will simply keep being expanded by hysterical liberals.

Lastly, Ehrlich and company certainly don't "favor the free flow of these arms" as the writer implies. Maryland already has some of the most draconian gun control laws of any state, so ownership and licensing are very tightly regulated.

The Hartford Courant (CT) editorializes about the national bill ("assault weapons") due to expire in the Fall. Needless to say, they don't like that:

Lawmakers must summon the courage to buck the gun lobby by renewing the ban and closing loopholes. The proposed Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act would accomplish both goals by adopting provisions in the current California ban, which is the toughest in the nation.

The bill before Congress would tighten the definition of assault weapons to prevent gun makers from making minor design changes to skirt the law. It also would close the loophole that allows manufacturers to sell "parts kits" to gun lovers who want to construct their own assault weapons.

But that just proves the point of those who would let the bill expire! If gun makers can simply make a minor design change "to skirt the law" then that must mean that the characteristics that supposedly make these guns "assault weapons" are indeed insignificant and cosmetic. And rather than just calling for renewal of the bill, the Hartford Caurant is calling on Congress to make it tougher -- to include more weapons. And in a few years, they would call for yet MORE weapons to be added to the list, and more ad infinitum. The slippery slope.

Incidentally, they take CT Senator Joe Lieberman to task for NOT adding his name as a co-sponsor.

The New York Times sets it's biased sites on the bill in Congress that would grant protection to the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits. Here's a quote:

A large number of police chiefs and other law enforcement officials have joined gun control advocates in a campaign to defeat a Senate bill that would grant gun makers and dealers almost total immunity from lawsuits.

and:

The police officials' campaign began last week when Chief William J. Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department held a news conference there denouncing the bill. Chief Bratton and 80 other police officials then signed a letter to the Senate expressing their opposition. At the same time, a full-page advertisement featuring a photograph of Chief Bratton and paid for by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence appeared in The Washington Post.

The advertisement is expected to appear soon in other major newspapers and on television, and Chief Bratton, the former New York City police commissioner, said he would go to Washington to lobby senators.

Chief Bratton, when he was in NYC and also in Boston, worked hard to tighten state laws against the ability of law abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

I'm willing to bet that you won't find any of these cops who've signed on in support of the Brady Bunch living in rural areas and probably ARE in cities that have or are planning to sue gun makers. After all, theres the potential for money in the air all though fortunately most of these suits have been dismissed so far.

Now this is important: This isn't an editorial, it's a "news story" yet aside from a brief quote from an NRA spokesman, it reads like an op-ed. In fact, while several police officials who are against the immunity bill are quoted, NOT ONE representing the countless police chiefs who favor the bill was quoted. And remember, most police in rural areas and many in states that allow concealed carry ARE fervently pro-2A and would likely support such a bill. This isn't reporting, it's editorializing. Not that we would expect anything better from the New York Times, which in my view has simply become the mouthpiece for the leftist faction of the Democratic Party.

The San Francisco Chronicle chimed in on the same subject:

THE NATION'S gun lobby rarely backs down from a good fight, which is more than could be said of vast numbers of congressional representatives too scared to take on the National Rifle Association.

That's why it appears there is a chance a bill that would exempt gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits brought by shooting victims could be approved by the U.S. Senate in the next month, unless reason stops being overshadowed by fear.

Well, at least the SF Gate calls their story an editorial... I love the fact that any legislator who might actually support the bill must somehow be "too scared" of the NRA. It never occurs to these writers that some people actually feel that S&W, Sturm Ruger, et al should not be held liable for the mis-use of their legal products.

That was about it for Yahoo. Here are a few items from Keep and Bear Arms...

While the national newspapers are loathe to ever print anything about the defensive uses of firearms, local papers aren't quite as biased. From the Seattle Times:

A jewelry-store owner shot an armed robber yesterday afternoon in the 4200 block of Southwest Alaska Street.

Investigators said the robbery occurred at 4:19 p.m. when two masked men pointed their handguns at the store's owner and an employee, said Seattle police spokeswoman Deanna Nollette.

During the robbery, the 42-year-old store owner pulled out his own handgun and shot one of the men in the chest, police said.

This is such a common occurrence and yet can you ever remember reading a story like that in WAPO or the NY Times?

I discussed last week the re-introduction of a bill in the Kansas legislature to allow concealed-carry. The Miami Herald has more:

Being first isn't always best, Wichita lawyer Kelly Johnston found Wednesday.

As chairman of Safe State Kansas, he was the first to testify against a bill to allow Kansans to carry concealed weapons -- before a committee that heavily favors the measure.

"How many Kansans must die before you decide they have the right to defend themselves?" asked Rep. Harold Lane, D-Topeka.

"Isn't self-defense different than vigilantism?" asked Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, R- Olathe.

While there is plainly plenty of support for the measure from legislators, the current Governor Kathleen Sebelius is unlikely to sign the measure (granted she hasn't quite come out and said that but her past record...)

I suppose that's a wrap on this edition. But remember that all through the week I'll be reporting on other stories that happen across our country. Thanks for stopping by!