Every week here at Alphecca is a little different. Some weeks (like last...) I was "linky" but this one I wasn't. I'm (that is, Alphecca) is always in flux. Anyway, There's more that I want to blab about but you know I have a strict rule that weekends are for rest and relaxation. (Actually, I have to work both Saturday and Sunday at my real job.) I really do thank all of you for reading my rants and raves. I'll be back on Monday with my "Weekly Check on the Bias" of gun stories. In the meantime, I wish you all a great weekend and I hope you'll hug your spouse and kids and pets and thank God or who ever you believe in that we still manage to live in the greatest country on Earth.

And here are my words of wisdom for the week: Nobody (that I know of) ever keeled over while eating chocolate ice cream. And few have ever suffered fatally while laughing. So if you all will please do both the whole weekend long, I think you'll be just fine... Thanks for stopping by!

I made it no secret that the only candidate in the Democratic primaries I tended to like was Sen. Joe Lieberman. While not totally in agreement with him on some issues, at least he understood the real challenges America faces in its foreign policy and of the threats against our country. He has an editorial in the New York Post today that shows just why I regret that he won't on the ballot this November:

We are at war. The lives of more than 100,000 American troops are on the line in Iraq. So, too, is the fulcrum of our present and future national security.

The stakes in Iraq for our future security and our victory in the wider war against terrorism are of the highest magnitude - and our politics must catch up with that reality.

I recognize that differences of opinion about why and how we went to war in Iraq run deep and run wide. But I believe deeply that we cannot allow arguments about past policies to stop us from finding common ground to face the present and future threats in Iraq.

We cannot re-fight the last war against Saddam with such focus and ferocity that we falter in fighting the terrorist insurgents that threaten Iraq and us right now.

As we are wont to say here in the blogosphere, read the whole thing. Lieberman gets it.

And what a stark contrast with the useless, pointless, idealess, planless blather from John Kerry, who would submit our nation's defense policies to review by France, Germany, The Netherlands, et al. If John Kerry becomes president, you can expect the mutant Islamic extremists to have their way launching terrorist attacks against us.

To use an analogy: Just as Kerry doesn't think American citizens should have the right to defend themselves with firearms -- a position at odds with the Bill of Rights, so too he doesn't consider America itself to be a sovereign nation that should determine it's own foreign policies -- a position at odds with the Constitution. John Kerry is anti-American in his views on how our great country should run it's affairs. He ignores and even makes a mockery of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. A few might even call that treason. And he's the guy the Democrats have decided should be president.

And it could have been Joe Lieberman in the race... *Sigh*

Call me clueless but I really don't see what all the fuss is about. They've been showing one of the ads here in Vermont. The scenes (firemen carrying a stretcher with rubble in the background) lasts all of about three seconds. The type-over states: "A challenge for all Americans." I'd hardly call that "politicizing" the issue. After all, September 11 was a (grotesque) defining moment for our country.

If anything, it's been the Democrats who've politicized it for years by claiming that Bush somehow knew this attack was going to happen and calling for all sorts of investigations into his administration.

And naturally this morning, the always biased NBC (Nothing But Crap) Today Show found three anti-Bush Democrats who lost family members and were willing to blather their "outrage."

The pathetic left, when not blaming Bush for the high winds on Mars, manage to turn every single thing he's done into some whiny conspiracy theory or at least liken him to some hideous figure in history (Hitler's name seems to come up with them a lot.)

And maybe that's the biggest problem with the leftist Democrats. They're so shrill and over-the-top and biased to the point of blindness that the rest of us (that would be the moderates who make up the majority of the country) just tune them out. I no longer even bother listening to or reading their screeds because it's so continuous.

I once lived near an airport and folks would ask me if the constant planes flying overhead bothered me. To be honest, after a short while you just get used to it and ignore it. And then you don't even hear them anymore -- it's all just part of the background noise of life.

James Rummel of Hell in a Handbasket has been an early booster of my mindless rants here. He's also helped out the folks near him (including a Pink Pistols chapter) to aquire their skills with handguns. The new CCW laws in Ohio require him to become officially certified as a firearms instructor. That's an expensive proposition, both due to the cost of the course and also it's location (it would require several overnight stays at a hotel.)

He's asking for assistance and I know I have some of the most generous readers in the blogosphere. Read his post here for more details.

Come on folks, James is one of the good guys on the Pro-2A side and some of you are receiving your tax refunds about now. Head over there and help him out. He calls it a loan but don't make it one, just send him a check with your blessings. He's in school at the present time also and that soaks up a lot of money too. Help out a former police officer get that certificate so he can continue his good work teaching people to defend themselves.

And thanks!

For a second time now the courts in Europe have shown themselves incapable of finding someone guilty of terror. From the AP:

A German court on Thursday overturned the world's only conviction for the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered a retrial for a Moroccan found guilty last year of aiding the Hamburg cell of suicide hijackers.

Mounir el Motassadeq's conviction on more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder and membership in a terrorist organization was flawed because the lower court failed to properly consider the absence of evidence from a key witness who is in U.S. custody, the Federal Criminal Court ruled.

"The case is to be sent back to another panel of judges at the Hamburg court for a new trial and decision," presiding Judge Klaus Tolksdorf said in reading the verdict.

These are the folks we should turn Saddam Hussein (and if he's ever caught, Osama Bin Ladin) over to for trial? I don't care whether it's the World Court, a court in Germany or France, or anywhere else in Europe -- they're all fake, phony frauds who suck-up to terrorists and murderers and especially if those mutants attack U.S. interests.

In fact, the travesty at the World Court in condemning Israel for trying to protect itself from murderous Palistinians by building a barrier is a perfect example of the sham that all Eurpean Union nations have become.

Did I just mention the World Court? You know, the court most likely to acquit Slobodan Misosevic of genocide?

When U.N. prosecutors opened their case against Slobodan Milosevic two years ago, they set out to get him convicted of genocide. The consensus today is, they failed.

Legal experts say prosecutors at the U.N. war crimes tribunal have assembled solid evidence on lesser charges against the former Yugoslav president. But acquittal on the genocide charge -- the crime of all crimes, experts say -- would have far-reaching implications.

Except for England which -- because of the guts and loyalty of Tony Blair -- shows a little common sense, I personally could care less if that whole continent was bombed... (Hey, this is a blog and if I want to voice outlandish and irrational opinions then I will.)

Just remember this also: If John Kerry becomes president, he'll put the EU in charge of our national security, our foreign policy, and our trade policies.

*Arghhhhh*

Les Jones has this week's Gun Links up. And he's written it tomorrow, to post yesterday, which is today...

Special thanks to reader Jim McCarthy for sending me this link to a shooting by armored car guards of a mutant trying to rob them. From the Washington Post:

A man was shot in downtown Washington this afternoon while trying to hold up guard making a delivery from an armored car to a bank, D.C. police said.

The shooting happened about 12:50 p.m. in the 900 block of 15th Street NW. The alleged robber was wounded twice in the leg and arrested at the scene. The guard was not harmed. But the shots interrupted a busy lunch hour in McPherson Square and sent passersby running for cover.

Witnesses said that the robber followed the guard, from the Dunbar armored car company, into a Chevy Chase Bank branch. They then heard three shots, and saw the robber stumble onto the sidewalk and collapse, a pump shotgun by his side.

The thug is expected to live (too bad!) and is in custody. I could write my usual spiel here but reader Jim says it all in his email to me:

1. At lunchtime today a bank robber with a pump action shotgun attempts to rob an armored car delivery. The incident takes place inside of 200 yards from the front door of the Washington Post building. Hundreds of office workers are having lunch in the park across the street.

2. A private security guard shoots the criminal with a handgun, incapacitates and apprehends him -- putting a swift end to the mayhem.

3. This is the same Washington Post, of course, that has spent the last two weeks railing against the necessity of handguns.

4. Staggering irony unmentioned in the Post's early account of the story, below. Likelihood that the guard will be praised on the editorial page for his heroism or for preventing a desperate criminal with a shotgun from sprinting past their building? Zero.

There are poor, criminal beleaguered folks in Washington DC (2nd in the nation in murder) who face such possible situations every single day. Yet the cops, the mayor, the city council, and the Washington Post refuse to grant them the (2nd Amendment) right to defend themselves as this guard was able to.

As far as I'm concerned, the mayor and the chief of police of Washington DC are indirectly responsible and should be held liable for the murder of their citizens who are being denied the right to protect themselves. A very deep ditch. You know what I mean...

Thanks Jim!

---

Update 3/4: Radley Balko was there!

And so the piece of crap Democrats who attached all sorts of amendments to the bill in the Senate that would have provided limited immunity from frivolous lawsuits have achieved their anti-American aim of squashing the Second Amendment. From the AP:

Senate Republicans scuttled an election-year bill to immunize the gun industry from lawsuits Tuesday after Democrats amended it to extend an assault weapons ban and require background checks on all buyers at private gun shows.

The National Rifle Association began pressuring senators to vote against the bill after Democrats won votes on the two key gun control measures. The 90-8 vote against the bill virtually ends any chance for gun legislation to make through Congress this year.

"I now believe it is so dramatically wounded that I would urge my colleagues to vote against it," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the sponsor of the gunmaker immunity bill.

Remember this in November folks -- a vote for a Democrat is a vote to destroy our Constitution and Bill of Rights. But shame on Bush for not using his political muscle more to twist some arms and force a clean bill through the Senate. As for the Democrats -- hell will have to freeze over twice before I ever vote for one of you anti-American bastards.

Today's vote: And I don't mean at the primaries... Today the Senate votes on the bill to grant limited immunity to the firearms industry for the criminal mis-use of their products. As InstaPundit points out, John Kerry, who has managed to miss the past 22 roll calls for voting, has suddenly decided to rush back to Washington DC (as apparently also Edwards is) to cast his anti-2A vote. That's curious since it sends a clear message to gun owners that he is against them. Didn't that (probably) cost Al Gore about five states in 2000?

Now here's something you might not have known -- Kerry served in Viet Nam. Yet he would deny the right of law abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves appropriately in many cities that are nearly as dangerous with rampant crime and gang wars.

In any event, John R. Lott, Jr. has on editorial in today's Washington Times summing up the bill's chances and the problems with the add-on amendments. Here's a quote:

While the main issue is not contested, there is however today a debate over whether the lawsuit bill will be loaded with amendments requiring more gun-control regulations. These "poison pills" may make it difficult to get through a conference committee with the House. Last week, the Senate passed a provision on gunlocks and today more votes are scheduled, including whether to regulate gun shows and ban some types of ammunition.

Indeed. While the House passed a "clean bill," it seems unlikely that the Senate will. Then the two versions have to be reconciled. That could take several months and frankly, it would be better for all of this to be settled now, rather than thrusting the gun control/gun rights arguments into what will be a hotter political climate as the Democratic and Republican conventions draw near. At that point, with the two contenders settled on, the gun issue -- not very high on anyone's radar according to most issue polls at the moment -- could become more of a contentious wedge issue.

The Election: I still think the election will come down to jobs and the war and who will better protect America from its enemies. People have short memories in terms on non-hot-topic issues such as gun control and the farther away from the election this legislation occurs -- if it does -- the better for defusing it as something the Democrats will use to stir-up their faithful.

One thing in President Bush's favor is that John Kerry has managed to propose nothing of substance to create jobs. Other than his brilliant plan to require companies to give "three months notice" when they plan to "outsource" he has absolutely nothing to offer on that front. On the nation's security, he would pretty much leave our protection up to France and Germany. Again, hardly a winning formula except with ultra-leftists who would hand over our nation's sovereignty to the European Union.

I'm presuming that Kerry will be the Democratic nominee. Vermont holds it's primary today and I'm not even bothering since John Edwards doesn't appear on the ballot. Too bad and lack of forsight on his part since I suspect a lot of Howard Dean's supporters would rather have voted for him than Kerry.

As I have blathered before, I am committed to no one. I'm not crazy about Bush but if I had to choose between Kerry and Bush... Well, it's way too warm today for me to consider Kerry... Hell has no threat of freezing over.

Click-Throughs: Incidentally, I often link to good folks such as John Lott and Dave Kopel and I urge you to "click through" to read their entire articles. First, because I can't possibly sum up all they have to say and besides, as professionals they say it much better than I ever could. But also, they earn their living from their writings. The only way such "paying" gigs such as internet publications have of knowing that Lott and Kopel (and Glenn Reynolds at MSNBC and Tech Central for that matter) have drawing power and are worth "re-hiring" for future op-eds is if they see a good, large number of visitors to their respective op-eds and columns. So please "click-through" my links to them and show your support of their ideas.

For the un-initiate: A click-through is where you click a link in a blog post, or an email, or somewhere else, to read the mentioned story or post. It lets the provider know that someone has come to their site to visit the writer. I create such emails and web pages that do this for a living. I won't bother you with the mechanics, just that it really is important. Important, that is, if you hope to continue to receive free content from many of your favorite websites.

I might also point (again actually) that many of the newspaper articles I link to in my posts require "registration." I don't bother mentioning it anymore because it is the way of the world. I use the same username and password for all sites -- easier to remember when cookies expire or aren't accepted. I thing registration is a very small price to pay to satisfy these newspapers and other websites that give away content for free.

NRO and Opinion Journal and Tech Central Station and WAPO and yes -- The New York Times and other newspapers and news sources don't make a whole lot of money allowing you to read their [paid reporters' and columnists'] writings. They mostly make their money on sales of their "dead-tree" editions. And frankly, they are under NO obligation to offer their wares for free on the web. They do it, of course, to entice you to subscribe or buy their paper versions or at least hope you'll visit a few of their advertisers. Providing a tiny bit of info about yourself so you receive a couple "spams" now and then is hardly a steep price to pay for some great reading by great thinkers.

Since I was much younger -- (that was thirty years ago) I have bought three newspapers every single day. I just do it. I need a wide range of viewpoints and sources of news since I've always been a news-junkie. I always buy the local paper. Then, throughout the week I buy papers such as USA Today, the New York Times, the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, and so on. Sometimes even the Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately, the Washington Post is not available here in Fairlee, VT or even in Hanover, NH where I work most of the time.

I've made it no secret here that I love books and magazines. I subscribe to both. I've "bragged" about it. I like the feel of spreading out a newspaper or magazine before me and leisurly reading. I hope you all will consider buying some as well. First, because there's nothing economical or environmentally "friendly" about burning 100 watts to read something on-line. Secondly, because these are providers who are giving you free content, and lastly, because it "slows you down" and forces you to actually want to read the entire article. I could add a fourth reason: There's a lot more in the paper versions than in the on-line versions. And maybe a fifth reason as well: You help pay the bills and the reporters and op-ed writers.

Which brings me full-circle to John R. Lott, Jr., and Dave Kopel and Glenn Reynolds: When I or any other blogger links to something of theirs, go ahead and "click-through" and visit and read their full op-ed. You will get all the facts, read the information as they actually wrote it, send a signal to the provider that you appreciate and want to read more by the afore-mentioned, and lastly, you insure that they will be paid and encouraged to write more. And that last is a true benefit to you (and me.) Everyone wins.

Especially you! You will continue to get terrific free content for the paltry price of your email address and a couple of demographic factoids. Bothersome email from any of them is easy to delete -- what is it? About 1/2 second of your time? Surely you can spare that to keep the flow of information going on the Internet...

Oscars, schmoscars, let's talk about guns. (Was that a song?) Specifically, the bias exhibited by Yahoo in the links to stories and editorials on their Gun Control Debate Page. Almost a clean sweep of new articles and editorials this week as the bill to provide limited immunity to the firearms industry (from frivolous lawsuits because of the mis-use of their legally made product) advances in the Senate. It's already been passed by the House.

The problem now is that since Democrats have basically conceded that the measure will pass, and President Bush has said he will sign the legislation, they (liberal Dems) are trying to pile on all sorts of wish-list amendments to advance their gun-control desires.

While all of the new editorials linked to were against the measure, or just anti-gun, almost all of the stories floated in that ether in between. It was difficult to rate them because on the one hand, they are saying that the "lawsuit immunity" bill was a sure thing, but on the other, that Democrat Senators were trying to attach all sorts of "clauses." Not pro, not anti, but not really neutral. So I will forgo "rating" the news stories.

In a perfect world, our lawmakers would simply vote on the bill as presented and it would pass or fail. Even President Bush called for a "clean bill." A nice thought and one we would all hope for but in real life on The Hill, it rarely happens. From the Washington Post:

The White House is opposing addition of gun show and assault weapons restrictions to a bill shielding firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits, prompting angry complaints from Democrats that President Bush is reneging on earlier support for the two proposals.

The dispute emerged as the Senate began debating the lawsuits measure, which is strongly backed by the National Rifle Association as well as the White House and appears to have the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate.

This story is listed by both Yahoo and WAPO as a "news story" but notice how they intone that the measure is "strongly backed by the NRA" and the White House and then admits that it also "appears" to have support on both sides of the aisle. Yah. In fact, 75 Senators have pledged support for the legislation, 3/4's of the Senate -- more than would be needed to propose a constitutional amendment! So it's NOT just an NRA or Bush thing.

Some of the amendments proposed have, in fact, been voted "yae" and added to the bill. The photo above shows one of them. The Boxer-Kohl amendment would require that "child safety locks" be included with all handgun sales. Here's a quote from the AP:

The GOP-controlled Senate voted 70-27 to require all handguns sold in the United States to have child safety locks, adding the measure to the legislation providing the gun industry immunity from suits when a legally sold gun is subsequently used in a crime.

Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin argued that requiring child safety locks on newly purchased handguns would help reduce the number of children accidentally killed by handguns in the home. Every 48 hours, a child is killed through an accidental shooting, Boxer said.

As far as I can tell, this amendment doesn't require that the safety device be built-in to the firearm, just that something, such as the cable-lock in the photo be included in the sale. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the sponsor of the "immunity bill" argued valiently against the amendment but I can't get too worked up over this particular one. Most firearm manufacturers currently include such a device already. I suppose the crunch might come if gun dealers are required to include such a lock with used-gun purchases but we're not talking about an expensive add-on. Yes, the poor urban purchaser trying to protect their family from someone might not want or be able to afford the extra ten bucks but in general, this is a good give-away amendment to satisfy the Democrats that they "enacted meaningful gun-control" with the passage of this bill.

But, of course, it didn't stop there. The Baltimore-Sun said this:

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate is set to take up a bill that gives legal immunity to gun manufacturers. It's a bad bill, but it's also certain to pass Congress. Two amendments are expected to be offered, and both need to be approved. The first would extend the assault weapons ban. The other would close the so-called gun show loophole that allows guns to be sold by unlicensed sellers at shows without a background check.

Let's take the "gun show loophole" first. By federal law, all licensed FFL dealers already have to call-in an "instant check" to NICS on any gun purchase. At some (very few, actually) gun shows, there are unlicensed dealers who don't run a check. They would have to start doing so. I actually don't have a problem with that -- if they have a table at a gun show, let them follow the rules that everyone else has to follow. So far so good. And if the wording of the amendment clearly stated that a gun show is an organized event, advertised, and held in a venue open to the public, than I would (much to the enragement of some of my readers, I suspect) support it.

The problem is with how a measure -- an amendment -- is worded. In the past, some bills attempting to legislate this requirement have defined a gun show as "any gathering" of three or more people with firearms. The proposed measure says, "special firearms events." !!! That could, depending on the politics of the prosecutor, include almost anything. In addition, Feinstein included a poison-pill measure to ban import of what some call "hi-capacity" ammo clips. They're banned now unless they were manufactured before the 1996 AWB. But now, manufacture date wouldn't matter.

Anyway... I'm president of the local gun club. We get together once-a-month or so during the Summer to make a lot of noise in the forest. Afterwords, we bar-b-que and have a few beers. I could be sitting in my living room with a couple friends and we're admiring each other's guns and one want's to buy someone elses and suddenly we're a "gun show." If this amendment includes such a broad definition of a gun show as to include private sales, or simply a few folks hanging out at the local sporting club, than I am resolutely against it. The old "known to me" clause should take effect.

Now, my take on the amendment to extend the phony "assault weapons" ban. Why do I always put it in quotes and call it phony? Because all guns esentially operate the same way. And eventually -- as anti-gun forces get their way -- all guns could be added to the list of banned firearms. A "semi-automatic" is a gun that requires you to pull the trigger for each bullet it will fire. The gun then "loads" another bullet. And you have to pull the trigger again. Almost all guns operate in this fashion. Even a revolver, after you fire a round, rotates the cylinder and lines-up another cartridge. "Semi-automatics" just do it a little more efficiently. In fact, unless we're talking about muskets and black powder rifles, pretty much all firearms really are "semi-automatic."

The "assault weapons ban" didn't deal with the mechanics of firearms, it dealt mostly with cosmetics. Did the gun look dangerous? How silly is that? Did it have a "pistol grip" and so forth. The problem, of course, is that once the gun-grabbers realize that their measure didn't reduce crime -- mutant criminals don't obey laws -- then they will keep expanding "the list" of banned weapons and eventually, all guns would be banned. The fact that they claim that gun makers "get around" the ban by making small modifications to their legally made products" PROVES that their definitions of an "assault weapon" are based on cosmetics.

That's the problem. The solution is to scrap this silly law -- let it expire in September -- and concentrate on the criminal use of guns. But they won't. They'll just keep adding and adding until all we law abiding citizens will be left with are black-powder rifles that require a complicated reload before we can fire them again. And more innocent people will die at the hands of thugs who ignore all laws anyway.

The only mention of language of these two amendments that I could find was this PDF from the Senate:

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.

The New York Times -- ever the defender of the Bill of Rights (that's a joke folks...) -- got the vapors over all of this:

President Bush has long been on record supporting two crucial gun-control measures: the renewal of the assault weapons ban, which has been the law for 10 years, and a new law to close the loophole that shady dealers can use to slip weapons to buyers at gun shows. For an equally long time, he did nothing to back up his words. Now, in the early days of his re-election campaign, Mr. Bush has finally acted. He has stepped in at a critical hour in an attempt to kill both of those vital laws and promote instead a plan to grant unreasonable immunity from victims' damage suits to reckless gun dealers and manufacturers.

As usual, the NY Times is wrong. What President Bush did was to say in effect, "Hey, let's just focus on this (immunity from frivolous lawsuits) issue and not load up the bill with lots of distracting and controversial issues. As for this bill being "unreasonable immunity" I would say to the New York Times this:

The "Flu" kills 30,000 people just in the U.S. each year. The vaccine has proven to be an effective preventative measure. Yes, there is a microscopic fraction of people who are allergic to the vaccine. Does that mean that we should ban the vaccine or allow lawsuits against the makers of the vaccine?

And furthermore, Ford Motor Company sells a lot of vehicles. Once in a while, some schmuck gets drunk and gets in his Ford and tragically kills an innocent person. Should Ford be held liable for that?

The [bastardly greedy] trial lawyers would like to hold firearm makers and distributors liable for the criminal use of their products. This bill would protect those companies from such frivolous lawsuits. It doesn't prohibit suits against defective products or illegal sales. Why is that so "unreasonable"?

This is the major issue this week. This ("immunity bill") is an important step towards protecting a legitimate industry. What really should happen is that this legislation (the original, not the amendments) should be used as a template for other industries. It's time to stop the lottery of lawsuits against innocent companies who make a legal product that helps millions of people live and enjoy and protect their lives.

The discussions in the Senate about this bill, and the amendments, are happening RIGHT NOW and you could watch it on C-SPAN or if -- like most -- you have to work, you can follow the "blow-by-blow" through several excellant bloggers who are covering this (I think) important legislation. The following are (they're not the only ones, just the ones known to me) blogging continuously on this bill:

Geek With a .45,
Say Uncle,
Publicola,
Countertop Chronicles.

We should give our thanks to them for their tireless coverage. Now, let me just say this once again: The anti-gun forces, the minions of the Brady Bunch and such, are busy phoning and faxing and emailing their senators to support all the gun control measures being heaped upon this righteous bill. Even if you are at work right now, if your boss isn't looking, find the proper phone numbers and emails and write, fax, and tell them that YOU are a voter who supports the Second Amendment and you will not tolerate their support for any of these fake, phony, fraud amendments attached to the "immunity bill."

You HAVE TO make your voice heard over the din. This bill could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow and you MUST try to convince your representative to keep it clean and not laden it up with a bunch of anti-Second Amendment clauses that infringe on your rights. Please! Don't say, "well yeah" and then just go back to your spread-sheet. Take a few minutes to fire-off a letter or email and protect our country, our rights, our freedoms. Just do it. I did it last week and I promise you it wasn't painful. And now, I will spend the next couple of hours doing it again. It's that important!

In closing, I guess this was a strange week for my "Weekly report" in that I editorialized A LOT but I really think we are at a junction where action is needed to secure our 2A rights. Please don't shrug and put it aside. Better yet, write me and let me know what you have done, include the text of your emails, etc. I'll put them up here at the end of this post. Just keep telling yourself: No Fucking Surrender of My Rights!

Thanks for stopping by!