For all that we brow-beat each other, humans are essentially good people who mean well. And more often then we might realize, someone passes through our lives who does good things for all of us. From the AP via Space.com:

Mister Rogers now has an asteroid named in his honor. "Misterrogers," formerly known as No. 26858, honors Fred Rogers, creator and host of public television's "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood." Rogers died Feb. 27 at age 74.

And who can argue with that?

I can't think of a nicer guy watching over us from above...

I've been rather mellow this week. I'll try to snap out of it and return to my snarling ways next week. As always, I take weekends off so I'll see you here Monday, same bat-channel. Thanks for stopping by...

...that I haven't posted a whole lot about gun rights this week. Last week almost every post I had was about the subject to the point where one emailer complained. Sometimes that's just how it works out. Next week will be... who knows...

Obviously nobody is reading my postings closely. This morning I sorta, kinda declared that I was a candidate for Governor of Vermont in 2004 and NOBODY sent in a single comment (or endorsement...) Oh the shame, the despair...

It's bad enough that my cats don't pay attention to me but I expect more from you folks...

And both Republicans and Democrats are to blame. As with many states, Vermont struggles to provide balanced funding for education (under court order) to towns with wide disparities in local town tax bases. At the moment, wealthy "gold" towns send part of their local school taxes to the state for redistribution. The Vermont house just passed a measure that would shift much of that burden to a higher sales tax (from 5% to 6%.) Governor Jim Douglas supports the plan.

From Jim Mace of the Times-Argus, here's a quote:

In a broad bipartisan vote, the Vermont House has given preliminary approval to an Act 60 reform bill that would shift some $70 million off the property tax and replace it with broad-based sales taxes.

The 107-32 vote came after House Republicans beat back several Democrat-led attempts to tap the income tax as a funding source instead of the sales tax. It is a victory for Gov. James Douglas, who earlier this year had to dissuade some House Republicans from doing the same.

The objectives of the plan are admirable as property taxes are quite high and do effect many poor families and farmers stuck in "gold" towns. But frankly, and I agree with the dissenting Democrats on this one, the funding should have been shifted to the income tax -- specifically to all the wealthy folks who moved to the state. And to property taxes on second (vacation) homes (which it partially does) by out-of-state residents.

Normally I would support a consumption tax but here's the problem: Sharing a very long border with Vermont is New Hampshire -- which doesn't have a sales tax. The border towns and cities of New Hampshire are dotted with shopping malls, factory outlets, and so on as folks from Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts cross the respective borders for tax-free shopping.

And believe me, especially on expensive or durable goods (computers, furniture, appliances, clothing, etc.) those borders are busy!

If I was in charge of the world, or at least Vermont, I would consider reducing our sales tax to -- say -- two percent. Here's why: All of the folks from all over Vermont now travelling to N.H. would shop at home because it would no longer be worth the gas money and time to save only $20 per thousand spent.

More importantly, shoppers from New York State, Massachusetts, and Canada would start streaming into Vermont to do their buying HERE. Creating more in sales tax collected, creating new businesses and a ton more jobs all resulting in more property and income taxes collected. Less would generate more! New Hampshire proves that every single day.

So I suggest that all of my Vermont readers consider nominating and supporting me for Governor of Vermont in the 2004 elections! As a side benefit, you'll get the strongest, pro-gun rights Governor you've ever had... Is that coffee I smell?

More tonight...

And another city bites the dust trying to extort money from innocent gun manufacturers making and distributing a legal product. Here's the story from Reuters, via the New York Times:

The City Council voted unanimously to withdraw from the case on the advice of the lawyer representing the city, Stanley Chesley. He noted that proposed federal legislation would grant the industry immunity from all such suits and the cost of having police officers testify in the case.

There are of course, several suits still pending, the most notable being the NAACP suit in Brooklyn, but the trend continues. Cities (meaning their lawyers) recognize they are on the losing side. And those that don't, have often seen their suits dismissed by honest judges. There's still a long uphill battle and that's why it's more important then ever that we all put pressure on our U.S. Senators to support and vote for the bill recently passed by the House to limit frivolous suits against gun makers and distributors.

Anyway, it's nice to end the week with a bit of good news.

A college student writes in to me:

Currently, I'm taking a class on managerial decisions and part of our classwork is to find an outrageously false statistic that has influenced decisions or policies. I remember a couple of years ago the gun-control lobby was pushing a statistic something along the lines of: "Since 1950, deaths attributed to firearms has doubled every year." I was wondering if you might know the original quote and who to attribute it to. I plan to use this information as part of an education presentation to some of my less informed classmates on the subject of firearms in America. Thank you for your help.

The research department of Alphecca International is a bit understaffed these days so if any of you know the origin of that bogus claim please email me (preferably with a link) and I'll forward it on.

First of all, in regards to Apple Computer's new Music Store and iTunes 4, Mike Silverman has been all over it. He likes it a lot and gives it two thumbs up on his site:

Overall, I am very impressed. This is the first music service to actually show some potential, to treat customers with respect, and to make buying music easy. I doubt I will buy any full albums with Apple's service, because I am a fetishist for the full CD experience, but for singles and albums where I only want a few songs, I am there!

In regards to AAC to MP3 conversion, reader David J. sent this link to a site with more information and links to software available. Of course it dawns on my slow mind that you can just burn a CD and then feed it into some older version of iTunes or some other software on your computer (I have Toast Titanium but haven't really used it much) and any sneaky code will be ignored as the CD disk is converted back to MP3s.

I'm going to try to download everything today or tomorrow at work where I have access to high-speed.

Joel M. takes me to task for not trashing Denise Johnson's editorial in a previous post:

Its a shame you give her a pass. She is the reason we have a "gun problem" in this country. She wants to sue companies so she can get some cash, instead of addressing the problem. Instead of going after law enforcement agencies who were lax, INS who were lax, she wants to blame the boogie man.

That's all fine, in America she can sue anyone she wants, she and her mindless compatriots can sue all the guns out of everyone's hands, but her children and her neighbor's children and husbands will still be killed occaisionally by reckless madmen bent on destruction, they will just use an airplane or car.

Speaking of which, if the "gun sellers" are partially responsible for her husband's death, does that mean I can get the "car sellers" to foot the bill for my speeding tickets?

I've been making these same points over and over for the last six months. Here's an example.

And see last week's weekly table where I actually print the entire text of the bill she's so angry about. None the less, I believe she is being manipulated by her lawyers. She doesn't know better and probably hasn't read the bill. Her right to sue the gun shop for negligence can still go forward and if Bull's Eye was negligent then they should bear some minor liability. Bushmaster? No, none.

The real responsibility lays -- of course -- with the two mutant thugs who committed these heinous crimes. But they don't have any money. Such is the sorry state of our civil-courts these days that those with the deep-pockets are the ones sued even if they did nothing wrong. Again, it is the Washington Post that should be ashamed for publishing such an inaccurate screed without doing any fact checking. That is the sorry state of newspapers these days...

In any event, I was simply tired that night and didn't feel like ranting, but I thought I made my opinions on it clear. Everyone should really check-out My Gun Posts page to see how much I've written about these subjects.

Thanks to everyone for writing in. More tonight.

I received this email today:

My research partner and I are professors at University of Tennessee-Knoxville and Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. We are conducting an online survey that examines the motivations for accessing Weblogs.

It comes with Glenn Reynolds' blessings. So

Click here to take the survey!

Chris Muir's Day By Day

Let's start with the table where I rate the bias shown by Yahoo in which stories and editorials they choose to link to on their Gun Debate Page:

Quite a large shift over the past seven days to the neutral column. Mostly this was due to quite a few stories about the retirement of Charlton Heston from the N.R.A. presidency. With the exception of a couple articles, most of those stories were placed in the neutral column since they didn't really have much to do with taking sides in the debate over gun control. I've already pointed out last week that one writer, Mike Schneider of the AP managed to insert as many anti-gun quotes as he could in the several stories he reported on.

Granted, this is all subjective since some stories that "should" go into the pro-gun column contain so many quotes by opponents that I have to rate them as neutral.

One chuckle in this story by Schneider. There were about 40 - 50 thousand attendees at the NRA convention. And... Well, here's the quote:

Those issues were the focus of a protest that drew two dozen gun-control supporters outside the convention center where the NRA was meeting. The protest was organized by the Million Mom March, a gun-control group.

"We must expose the extremist agenda being discussed in this building behind us," said Mary Leigh Blek, director of the Million Mom March.

Yes, so extreme that of all those Millions of Moms, only a couple dozen could show up to protest. As my blogfather, Glenn Reynolds would say, "Heh."

One of the best lines delivered at the convention came from Florida Governor Jeb Bush. In this Reuters story Bush rightly credits the N.R.A. members with helping to get his brother George W. elected President. And he says:

"Were it not for your active involvement, it's safe to say my brother would not be president of the United States," the younger Bush said.

The governor said he and his brother both support the NRA's contention that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which contains "the right to bear arms," is an individual right with few restrictions.

"The sound of our guns is the sound of freedom," said Bush, to thunderous applause from the gun group.

I love it. Of course, President Bush is rightly drawing heat for stating that he is willing to extend the sunsetting Assault Weapons Ban law. Misguided praise for his decision comes from this Denver Post editorial:

...But millions of other people support reasonable federal gun control and believe law-abiding citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights without keeping and trading assault weapons designed for nothing more than killing a lot of people in a short amount of time.

The Post strongly supports the president's decision to stay with a reasonable measure that makes sense and thus continue to control such weapons.

The problem -- of course -- is that the definition of "assault weapons" is based almost entirely on the cosmetics of the firearm. If it looks like something Rambo might carry, it must be an assault weapon so let's ban it. Every weapon could be classified as an "assault weapon" including hand-guns, fertilizer, knives, etc. It's a meaningless phrase.

Another critique of the bill limiting frivolous lawsuits against gun makers and distributors came from the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

These attempts to gain through verdicts the de facto gun control that legislatures decline to impose have nonetheless drawn a disproportionate response from the House of Representatives. Just before its most recent vacation, a two-thirds majority of that body voted the arms industry a singular protection: near-complete immunity from virtually all lawsuits.

Were the Senate to follow suit and approve the version of that measure now before it, the resulting law would make the firearms trade the only enterprise so shielded from legal action.

In all fairness, this editorial does make the case that tort-reform laws need to change. However, the claim that gun makers would be in a special class all by themselves (with immunity to suits) is wrong. I can think of another group of product manufacturers immune -- even to selling defective product. You're using their products at this very moment: Software companies. They can charge a pound of flesh for bug-infested computer programs and you can't sue them for it. and it costs Americans quite a bit in lost productivity and compromised security matters. I just thought I'd point that out...

Anyway, an interesting week. I'll discuss some other individual stories in the coming days. Thanks for stopping by!

By the way, if any of you would like to support what I do here at Alphecca, now would be a great time to make a donation to the "kitties" on the side-bar... My cash-flow is rather bad...

Chris Muir's Day By Day

Way back in February I mentioned that Bill Quick was posting Chris Muir's Day By Day Cartoon. I've been so impressed with this political satire strip that today I wrote to Chris asking if he would mind if I posted some of his stuff. He wrote back:

Go ahead and run DBD, man. Just pull it off the site and post it on yours...

...I like (Alphecca) .50 Cal Commentary -- I am, of course, NRA, just got back from the big NRA show in Orlando yesterday. I really appreciate you linking DBD up on your site...

Needless to say, I never question a free gift from a great talent like Chris. So I will sprinkle Alphecca postings with his terrific work. Sometimes his latest, sometimes a series from the past. Thanks Chris!

I mentioned this on Sunday. By downloading the new iTunes 4, you can now buy songs from Apple Computer for 99 cents each or albums for $9.00. Details of the whole process are here. And here are the details of the Music Store. But I'll quote some of it for you:

99¢ Apple has made the music-buying experience a whole lot easier. Our agreements with the major record labels make a huge selection of music available to you. You can buy an album or only the songs you want. And once you buy the music, you own it -- no complicated rules, no clubs to join, and no monthly fees. If you like a song, you buy it for just 99¢, and it downloads directly to your music library in seconds. In fact, you can buy a song or a whole album with just one click.

The iTunes Music Store is fast and convenient for you, and fair to the artists and record companies. In a nutshell, you can play your music on up to three computers, enjoy unlimited synching with your iPods, burn unlimited CDs of individual songs, and burn unchanged playlists up to 10 times each.

The iTunes Music Store is only available in the U.S. To get running all you need is a Mac with Mac OS X (version 10.2.5 or later recommended), and an Internet connection (DSL, Cable or a LAN-based connection recommended for streaming and downloading music). Just download iTunes 4, click the Music Store icon, and you¹ve got the world's most accessible music store, right on your screen. Feel free to browse for as long as you want. There¹s no pressure to buy, no annoying pop-up ads, and no confusion about what's offered.

The songs are in a new format called AAC which is supposed to be better and smaller but I suspect it also has "controls" built into it to regulate what you do with the song. Still, if you can burn it onto CDs then maybe it will be legit. I wonder if there would be software (or if iTunes 4) to convert AACs to MP3s. I might try this out in the next day or so and of course will report on it here.

Windows users should know that Apple will be releasing a version for you by the end of the year.

...which is more than I can say for the Washington Post for printing this shameless op-ed by the widow of a man killed by the D.C. Snipers. I could take this thing apart line by line but she's entitled to grieve, though WAPO made it easy for her to do it in public.

Read last week's posts for the real facts about the bill passed by the house to limit lawsuits against gun makers. Suffice it to say that yes, she still has the right to sue the Bull's Eye gun shop in the state of Washington. The bill in question doesn't limit that right. So this op-ed is just flat-out wrong. But I'm going to leave her alone. I'll trash the Washington Post (easy pickings...) another day.

The last thing I knew was that the Bitch Girls were partying this past weekend and now I just don't know where they've gone too...

Just a reminder that Matt Hinton has a fine wrap-up of the news headlines over at It Could Be Better each weekday morning.

Aubrey Turner has a post about guns with built-in MP3 players. I presume the song of the day is the 1812 Overture...

Leigh Hanlon is a ham guy with this report (and many others) on Ray X and Col. Steve Anderson. I'm a sometimes listener to shortwave radio but I always try to catch Johnny Lightning on WBCQ every Sunday night from 8-12 PM at 7.415 Mhz. That's Eastern time...

And remember, you can catch all the latest gun-rights news at Publicola and KABA. But remember to check in here at Alphecca as well. Especially every Wednesday morning for my bias check...

Once upon a time in 1992, I actually liked and supported Bill Clinton. He seemed to understand what was important. Then, I came to realize what a slimeball he was as a person and frankly, I require better of a leader. More on this later.

Howard Dean was sweeping through Iowa this weekend and there are many things I admire about him. And I am well aware that during the time leading up to the primaries, candidates lean to the left or right to energize their convention delegates. But Dean is a small guy and so both of his feet fit neatly into his mouth over the past couple days.

From the Times-Argus, a slightly confusing story from AP writer Mike Glover:

In recent weeks, Dean has gotten heavy attention because he's been among the leading Democrats opposing President Bush's Iraq policies. Some have argued that the early end to the hostilities and quick ousting of Saddam Hussein would discredit critics of the war.

Dean rejected that argument.

"People asked me in the beginning that if the war went well would my candidacy be hurt because I've done so well because of the war," he said. "The answer is 'no.' People who are against the war still feel very strongly about it."

Yes, all seven percent of the voters. Dean also said that this is what sets him apart from the other Democratic candidates; his opposition to the war. Well, the war is over and it went well. But just as no one is paying attention to what is happening in the recently liberated Afghanistan, so too, a year from now when we're in primary fever, no one will give a rat's-ass as to what is happening in Iraq. I'm not admiring the fact that American voters have a short interest-span, I simply point it out and further state that Dean better have some more timely, relevant solutions to our nation's immediate problems.

Richard Gephardt thinks he knows what that is -- universal health care, according to this story in USA Today by Jill Lawrence:

Rep. Richard Gephardt has put a price on the centerpiece of his Democratic presidential campaign, a proposal that he says will revive the economy, put money in the hands of businesses and workers and address "the moral issue of our time": 41 mllion Americans without health insurance.

And to pay for it he will repeal all of President Bush's tax-cuts. Gephardt is running on that plank and just like Michael Dukakis, he's gonna get stomped like a narc at a bikers' rally if he runs against Bush on that idea alone. It should be noted that Howard Dean also wants universal health care but hasn't actually produced his plan yet.

And who the hell knows where Joseph Leiberman stands these days on almost anything. He's forgotten the principles he used to adhere to that brought him the respect of people on both sides of the aisle.

I've got news for all of them: Yes, Americans think about the cost of health care and many of them worry about it. But that still isn't the number one issue on peoples' minds. It's just a symptom of the real problem. Any good doctor will tell you that treating the symptom isn't enough, you have to go after the cause of the problem.

SARS? Oh please! Last year it was West Nile Virus, the year before that it was Lyme disease or Ebola or something else the mass media used in order to try to scare you into paying attention to them.

Homeland security? Rightly or wrongly, people have already moved past that too. Until there's another terrorist attack (at which point everyone can start pointing fingers of blame again,) folks have something more pressing on their mind. The only thing the average person really cares about day after day is something that causes them to worry everyday. Something much nearer than the abstract or the potential threat.

The problem is the economy.

Well, Bush is suddenly showing an interest in the economy but his only lame solution is to cut taxes further. Look, I don't suggest repeal of his first round of tax-cuts. But with the cost of the war and rebuilding Iraq, and the federal government (not to mention state governments) plunging into deficits, this just isn't the time to cut taxes again. At this point, a few tax cuts for the wealthy will have absolutely no impact on the average American. And it is the average guy and gal that determines elections. And right now they're broke. Lots of them are looking for a job. Lots of them haven't seen a raise in some time. Lots of them have seen their retirement nest-egg reduced to a few broken shells.

The one thing Clinton (or his advisors) got right was that for most folks today (or any day) it's the economy. Stupid! Stupidly simple! People need jobs and money; that's what makes our country go-'round. When people are employed and have money, all other problems take care of themselves. People have money to pay the bills, buy stuff, put their kids through college, pay for health insurance, and pay taxes. And the government then has lots of that tax money to finance whatever silly programs they want to waste it on.

If Bush wants a second term, he'd better start thinking intelligently about what will make our economy start to grow again.

Now look, I don't actually blame Bush for the down-turn in the economy any more then I give credit to Clinton for growing it. Both of them were bystanders to the explosion of the internet which saw the start-up of a lot of companies that showed huge promise. And greedy investors (that's us, folks,) threw money at those companies and suddenly became wealthy, all based on hope and speculation. And of course that old adage, "if it seems too good to be true..." proved itself as NONE of these companies proved to be worth the paper their stock was printed on. It was a fun ride but like any roller-coaster, the last leg of the journey was down-hill. Amazon.com had a billion dollars worth of sales last quarter and still couldn't make one lousy buck in profit.

In the meantime, Bush is wasting valuable political capital by firstly pissing off gun owners (a large voting block) by stating he will sign an extension of the "assault weapons ban" and secondly by saying, or at least allowing his big-fat-mouthed spokesman Ari Fleischer to say that he supports the inane statements of Rick Santorum. Discussing homosexuality is a losing proposition for anyone on either side of the issue. Half will agree, half will disagree. Bush and/or Fleischer should have kept their mouths shut and avoided the whole fray completely. Stay out of it. The average person doesn't want to discuss it or think about it or hear about it. They're sick of it. It doesn't matter to them in their day-to-day lives.

What matters is the economy. THE ECONOMY. Focus on nothing else and come up with something better then just another fucking tax-cut. The candidate who does that will be the next president.

Apple is going into the business of allowing users to download tunes for 99 cents each. From the Financial Times:

The service, which is expected to be based on Apple's iTunes music software, is expected to offer consumers the ability to download any song to their computers for about 99 cents, around 60 cents of which is likely to be passed on to the music company. It is not expected to charge a monthly subscription fee.

They've cut a deal with the five big record companies. The service will also be available to Windows users by the end of the year.

Well, this is all fine and dandy but what format and coding are the downloads in? If I have to use some "special" software to download these songs, and these downloads will only play on my computer or iPod, then screw-it. It's useless.

On the other hand, if the songs come down as regular, un-adulterated MP3's that I can then burn onto a CD and play in my car on the way to work -- great! I'd go for it. But somehow I doubt that's what it is. I guess we'll all find out tomorrow.

Look, I have no problem paying 99 cents for a song I really want if it saves me from having to spend 15 bucks to buy the rest of the album containing a bunch of crap. And if it makes lots of "out of print" songs available, so much the better. But if they're going to limit my enjoyment of the song to just playing it on the computer that down-loaded it then what's the point?

The post below is a hold-over from last Friday because I (and my hyper-inflated ego) think it was a good post... So there.

So here is Bob Johnson, a supposed Second Amendment-supporting "hunter" from Minnesota with his tired, phony op-ed in the Minneapolis - St. Paul Star Tribune proclaiming that all of us red-blooded Americans who support the Second Amendment (as it was written and intended) should lighten up and somehow embrace -- how do the Brady Bunch and other liberals put it -- "sensible gun control measures... Don't eat anything right now because, well -- here's a quote:

The unfortunate truth is that those gun owners who speak the loudest represent only one rather extreme element of the gun-owning population.

Where as what? You think you speak for us? Here's the real truth: The gun owners who speak the loudest are the ones protecting our constitutional right to bear arms. Certainly it isn't simps like you who want to be the only ones allowed to own a firearm to protect yourself.

The rest of us do not support the notion that our community will be safer with thousands more gun-toting citizens carrying concealed, loaded handguns. Nor do we believe that military-style combat weapons should be marketed to the general public.

Au Contraire! The rest of us DO think our communities will be safer if all of us exercised our 2nd Amendment right to protect ourselves from all the mutant thugs out there who would rob or kill us in the blink-of-an-eye. And what the hell does "military-style" have to do with anything? A gun is a gun is a gun. Just because some liberals like yourself try to define some guns "as such" based on their cosmetic appearances, that doesn't or shouldn't disqualify them as legitimate firearms. Our founding fathers didn't write, "...right to bear wimpy looking arms..."

Most of us do not fear reasonable regulation. We support background checks, maintenance of good records, manufacturing safety standards, and measures that make guns inaccessible to children.

Here's how I really know this guy is a fraud. YES WE DO fear all regulation because that is the first move towards confiscation. All through recorded history it is the regulations and registrations that have led to the next logical (to liberal activist dreamers like you) step of removing all weapons from the hands of the folks who need them the most. The poor people living in desperate neighborhoods with rampant crime are the exact folks who need the protections afforded by our Constitution the most. Not rich, hypocritical Hollywood types who all have concealed-carry permits issued on demand but decry the need for any of us common folks to be allowed to protect ourselves and children.

Actually though, all of us need firearms. We are all under threat of attack at any time. From criminals, from terrorists, from an oppressive government, from what ever...

We don't or shouldn't have to justify our want to own and bear firearms. It is our God given right, or if you prefer, our genetically determined right that one of our prime directives hardwired into our brains (aside from procuring food and procreating) is that we need to and must be allowed to defend ourselves. Every single animal and plant on this great Earth deserves the right to self-defense. Animals use their teeth and claws. Plants develope their own defenses. Man has developed the firearm as a tool (same as a stone-ax) to defend himself and his family. It is an immutable right programmed into us and no government can remove or nullify that drive to protect one's self.

I will conceed one point only -- that yes, someone buying a gun should be subjected to some sort of background check to make sure they don't have a criminal history. But frankly, private sales can't be made subject to that without invoking registration and I am absolutely against registration.

As for "maintenance of good records," -- what the hell does that mean?

As for "manufacturing safety standards," -- I have already shown and ranted about (and no, I won't look up all the links right now) how trying to make guns meet the "safety standards" of a child's car seat is completely not applicable. Guns are inherently not safe unless "used as directed." Smart guns and child safety guns will be useless in personal protection and will only result in getting the owner of the gun and probably his loved-ones killed by some damn mutant thug.

Lastly, you can't legislate common sense. The only one who can keep guns out of the hands of children are the gun owners themselves. I've always said (right here on Alphecca) that parents who leave unsupervised guns lying around where unsupervised children can get hold of them deserve the wrath of the law. But that really isn't something you can pass laws for and enforce unless you bust into everyones' homes every hour and inspect what's happening.

It's time for gun owners to disassociate ourselves from the extremists who argue that any attempt to sensibly regulate firearms takes us down the slippery slope toward confiscation. There is no threat to losing our right to own guns for sport.

I've used the example a couple of times here. Abortion advocates instantly react to any attempt to outlaw "partial birth abortions" because as repellent as those procedures are (forcing the birth of a viable child so you can crush the skull in the alimentary canal to kill it before the head is exposed, where then it would definitely be considered murder) -- abortion activists think that such a law is only the first step towards preventing, legislating against all abortions.

So it is that we gun owners know perfectly well that liberals will use registration and regulation as the first steps to confiscation. History has proven this again and again. Hitler's Germany is a perfect example but if you need a more recent one then look at England, Australia, and now -- Canada.

There is no threat to losing the right to own guns for sport YET but that will come. There is a very real threat to losing the right to possess firearms for personal protection. That's what the Second Amendment and every collateral writing by the founding fathers of our great country were trying to protect. It wasn't about food procurement, it was about personal defense! And that is the very thing liberals want to take away from us. If the population is defenseless then the tyranical, socially engineered society and all-controlling government that liberals want to inflict on all of us can actually come into being

Yes, yes, YES! There IS a "slippery slope toward confiscation" and Bob Johnson, the writer of this pathetic op-ed, knows it and flat-out supports it. How dare he claim that he speaks for all gun owners. How dare he claim that he has the sole deed to the thoughts of the majority of Americans who take advantage of and who respect the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. What a sick, horrible editorial. He speaks for no one -- but liberals will no doubt quote him and say, "See! Even gun owners want gun control." Wrong! What absolute bullshit. Shame on the Star Tribune for publishing this ruse.