A new NRA publication, Woman's Outlook, is doing well. Geared towards encouraging women to take up outdoor activities such as hunting, the magazine is selling like hotcakes and is receiving a big boost from Wal-Mart. From the Boston Globe:

The National Rifle Association's newest publication, a 75-page magazine written for its growing female membership, has been such a hit since it premiered last January within the organization that Wal-Mart began carrying it on nearly 10 percent of its newsstands nationwide this month. And over the next two months the nation's largest retailer will expand its sales, featuring Outlook in more than half of their 2,900 stores.

"We offer news type articles, how-to articles, like how to fit a shotgun. How do you go about finding a shotgun that's right for you? The right boots for hunting, for shooting?" explained the magazine's editor, Karen Mehall. "We don't have to wear our dad's hunting clothes anymore."

To be honest, the bias of this article reads like a "puff-piece" wholly written by the NRA but that's okay; it's a rarity to find something like this in the (usually) anti-gun Globe anyway. Each month, the magazine sports a picture of a woman outdoors holding a firearm. This sends a healthy message to women that they are welcome in realms that Sen. Diane Feinstein couldn't begin to comprehend. In most families, they always have been part of the hunting tradition except, again, in the elitest coastal urban areas (see below.) It will be nice to see this magazine sitting alongside the more condescending ones on your average newstand.

Just days before Thanksgiving, the Consumer Product Safety Commission had been planning to force Daisy to recall every BB airgun that had been sold. From the Wall Street Journal:

Christmas is the time for miracles, however, and the good news is that the commission has just reversed itself in a 2-1 vote for a settlement that drops the recall demand. Commissioner Mary Sheila Gall, who was the sole dissenting vote against the initial filing, declared that in 30 years of government service, she had "never seen a more outrageous miscarriage of justice and abuse of the processes of public policy" than the CPSC action against Daisy. This time she was joined by the new chairman, Hal Stratton, who voted to settle after reviewing the evidence and concluding that the CPSC might not prevail on the merits.

Daisy will have to spend money on an ad campaign to promote safe handling, as well as more prominent warning stickers to repeat the obvious, but at least the tradition is safe for now. This will no doubt enrage urban liberals on the coasts but then they would never think of buying their brats something fun that gets them outdoors anyway. If it can't be plugged in, it can't be good...

I'm a bit more mellow, or something, than I was last year at this time. My financial situation is much worse. The company I work for is in tough times. The country is more idealogically torn apart then it was last year.

None the less, there are some things that I can be thankful for today: For the first time in 30 years, I have not suffered a long (months) bout of Cluster Headaches. And Allopurinol seems to be keeping my Gout in check as long as I exercise some restraint in my diet. My cats are healthy (even almost 20-year-old Rainbow who refuses to get sick or worse...) and more importantly, almost everyone in my family (parents, brothers, aunts and uncles, cousins and so on) are healthy and doing well.

My silly blatherings here at Alphecca continue to be read and two days ago I passed the 130,000 visitor mark. Not bad for a 13-month run of a way-off Broadway show.

On a larger scale (because life in general really isn't all about me -- drats!) the American economy is rapidly improving (much to the dismay of Democrats) and while the New York Times might like to portray our efforts in Iraq as an utter failure, reports from un-agenda'd folks show that things there are continuing to improve -- schools, infra-structure, etc. There are of course the tragic losses of life on all sides, especially our brave soldiers, and I wish that would end. But I hope the end result of our actions will result in a free, democratic society that prospers from their natural resources and new-found liberties.

I've bought my traditional Swanson Hungry-Man Turkey Breast TV Dinners. Two of them. One I eat in it's entirety and the other -- the cats get the (sliced-up) turkey and some stuffing. I finish-off the rest.

So I want to take a moment to wish you all a very happy Thanksgiving. I hope you're lucky enough to spend it with loved ones or friends and family. If you're alone like me, I hope your football team wins! May your lives be filled with good thoughts, good food, and -- good vibrations. If you're travelling, please be careful, defensive, and polite. May the Almighty God please bless all of us. Peace.

With sincere apologies to one of the nicest guys in the blogosphere, Dean Esmay, who is patiently waiting for my blathering answers to his interview with me -- I promise -- PROMISE -- that on Thanksgiving Day I will finish them and send them off to you -- Promise!!! And I hope he does kick the habit... But also, since I probably never will, in commiseration with Acidman and Rachel Lucas and Say Uncle and Mrs du Toit and Emperor Misha and anyone else I don't know about... This butt's for you...

---

Time-Line January 2007:

Far off from most of us, in the Nevada Desert, probably near Art Bell, a meteorite falls that contains within it a virus that will, in the near future, wreck havoc with mankind. The meteorite lands in a fireball and splits apart, releasing a horrible -- horrible I tell you -- virus that causes all people to develope huge Dave Barry style boogers that hang from everyone's noses and finally consumes them. Scientists (and me) don't actually know how this horrible thing happens but it makes for good blogging so I'll plow on...

Soon, people -- lots of innocent people -- are afflicted with this terrible disease and die of "terminal boogerism." Oh! The humanity, the humanity... With all of our problems, this is absolutely the last thing humankind needed to terrorize them. But the "booger of death" spread through-out the general population. It was awful! A man or woman walking down the street and suddenly a huge "booger" popped out of their nose and "maimed them" or even worse... Even on TV, average newscasters and others were dropping like -- oh, I don't know -- big hanging drops of booger from their noses... Folks, it wasn't a pretty sight...

Nobody in our science world could solve this horrible problem until one bright student at Harvard noticed (while "lighting up") that tobacco smoke seemed to immediately shrink and eliminate the dastardly "booger" that were slaying so many innocent people.

Needless to say, very serious researchers found that -- astoundlingly -- cigarettes seemed to eliminate these unsightly and rather vicious blobs-of-death... These same scientists discovered that for cigarettes to have any beneficial effect, they must be burning and inhaled. Don't ask me why, it's a mystery shrouded in bloggerdom...

People were terrified of this new disease and were looking for any cure they could find.

As soon as the news that smoking tobacco could prevent boogerism and prevent infection by this terrible disease, the news spread fast!

As you can see by this totally un-retouched photo of a headline from a totally average newspaper -- well, draw your own conclusions.

Time-Line March 2007:

As soon as government officials and other Really Important People discovered the healthful effects of smoking, in order to combat the horrible "boogerism", well, they pass laws that will encourage people to take their health care into their own fingers and lips.

Congress quickly eliminated all cigarette taxes and passed spending appropriations to once again subsidize tobacco growers. Cities and states begin to repeal all anti-smoking laws. As New York State governor Hillary Clinton said,

We must do everything reasonable to encourage people to smoke. Nobody should feel they need to compromise their well-being by being prevented from lighting-up in a restaurant or any other workplace.

Insurance companies, HMO's and Medicare began giving significant discounts in health insurance policies to people who wisely smoked. The FCC told TV and radio stations that ads from tobacco companies should be run for free as Public Service Announcements.

Time-Line June 2007:

Dr. J. Kavorkian of the Centers for Disease Control announced that even if people didn't want to actually smoke themselves, as long as they were surrounded by other smokers, they would still derive some of the beneficial preventive and curative powers of cigarette smoke. Restaurants, malls, and other public spaces become "Smokers Only" establishments.

Basketball legend Michael Jordan comes out of retirement again and also signs a multi-million-dollar deal to endorse Marlboro cigarettes. Often -- at the urging of his coaches and other players -- he is seen enjoying a butt or two while on the bench. Other athletic superstars are quick to take-up the "healthful habit" in public.

Time-Line August 2007:

President Howard Dean -- a physician -- issues a major policy speech on national television.

Here's a quote:

The American people need to realize that while we have slowed the progress of "boogerism" we still have much more work to do. We need to encourage our children -- as soon as they are able to safely work a Zippo lighter -- to "take a break for health" and begin smoking. I am, today, asking Congress and all states to lower the minimum age for cigarette purchases to six-years-old and furthermore, to prod all schools to allow students to smoke between classes, during recess, and of course at lunch and study-hall.

In addition, I am asking the FTC to require all cigarette packs to carry a safety-promoting message to the affect that cigarettes promote a healthy lifestyle and can prevent "diseases of snot." It's for the children!

Schools around the nation adopted "100 percent tolerance policies" that for all practical purposes required students to carry a pack of smokes with them at all times.

Many states' Division of Motor Vehicles adopted regulations that teens applying for driver's licenses show proof that they engaged in health-promoting cigarette smoking.

New York Times executive editor Andrew Sullivan writes in an editorial:

My husband and I can't think of any greater gift congress could give to the American People this year than to include Tennessee Senator Glenn Reynold's Health and Human Services budget amendment requiring cigarette vending machines in all schools, libraries, and other governmental buildings.

During a debate among Republican presidential hopefuls, President Dean is attacked as being "too soft" in his support for cigarette smoking.

Time-Line December 2007:

As all of mankind takes "a cigarette break for health", the scourge of "boogie disease" slowly ebbs. There's peace and contentment, except -- of course -- for the continuing quagmire in Iran, where President Dean has sent another 35,000 peace-keepers.

Time-Line February 2008:

Scientists discover that the McDonald's Big Mac actually lowers cholesteral...

Hey! I can dream, can't I...

I can't find a news link for it, even on the Today Show website at MSNBC but this morning at about 7:45 this morning Katie interviewed an elderly couple (he a doctor) who picked up a man in their car in Arkansas who was lying in the road pretending to be injured. The man pulled a gun on them and forced them on a six hour car trip into Texas. During a "bathroom break" the elderly doctor, realizing he and his wife probably wouldn't be released alive, pulled his own pistol out of the glove compartment and shot the car-jacker, injuring him. He was later arrested.

Hopefully when I get home from work tonight I'll be able to locate the story on the web. But what is so astounding is that this is the first instance I know of of the positive portrayal of the defensive use of a firearm by a citizen EVER on a major TV news show. Chuckie Schumer must be knashing his teeth...

Update:
My buddy Dave at Pervasive Light steered me to this coverage from KTBS in Shreveport, Louisiana. Warning, the link seems to change a bit. Here's the station's home page in case the other link doesn't work. Anyway, here's a quote:

On Sunday night, Peebles and his wife, Suzanne, were driving in the Waldron, Ark., near Fort Smith and stopped to help a man who appeared to have car trouble.

That man was Scott Eizember, wanted for a double murder in Oklahoma.

Peebles, an emergency room doctor, and his wife were forced to drive nearly 300 miles. During a restroom break south of Lufkin, Texas, Dr. Peeble's managed to grab a handgun he had hidden in his van and shoot his abductor who was outside the van.

"I cocked the pistol and got out and just point-blank started firing at him," said Peebes, whose head shows the cuts from being pistol-whipped by his abductor...

Look folks, this stuff happens all the time. The reason this is different is that one of the big networks ran with the story and in fairness to Katie Couric, they were right up-front that he used a gun to protect himself and his wife.

Good business but I doubt this is a new trend in honest reporting, just some weird anomaly...

---

Update 11/28 Comment:

One reason this story got coverage is that the man they shot was the hottest fugitive in the Southwest, and that he forced them to drive them out of the search area. If you look at the sidelinks to the news story, there had been several previous headlines about him, and one other fugitive arrested as a result of looking like him. This was enough to get it regional coverage.

As for the national coverage, I don't know. Maybe things really are shifting.

--Tom E.

Thanks Tom.

If it's Monday, it must be time for Alphecca's Weekly Check on the Media's Gun Story Bias. I take a look at news stories and editorials from the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page as well as some other sources. Normally I try to use a "topical" photo for the chart. Here's a bunch of future "Butterballs."

Fine, have it your way, a flock... Most of the items this week were turkeys too.

The dominant story this past week was the decision by the ultra-liberal San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate a lawsuit in California holding Glock and others liable for the criminal rampage by a white-supremacist mutant. Here's a quote from the AP:

In the decision reinstating the case, Judge Richard Paez wrote that Glock's marketing strategy creates a "supply of post-police guns that can be sold through unlicensed dealers without background checks to illegal buyers."

The judge also wrote that Glock and China North supply weapons to distributors "who are responsible for the sales of guns that end up in the hands of criminals."

Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall dissented, saying the court was twisting the law to obtain a "just result" for the victims.

The plaintiffs are claiming that Glock acted negligently in the sale of the gun that wound up in the hands of Buford Furrow, the killer who criminally mis-used a legal product. Here's the "chain of custody" of the Glock, one of the weapons this mutant used on his shooting spree, as reported by the SFGate:

The Glock pistol that killed Ileto was initially sold to a police department in Cosmopolis, Wash., but was quickly traded to a local gun dealer, then sold to an unlicensed trader, who sold it to Furrow at a gun show, the suit said. It said Glock sold numerous guns to police that were unsafe for civilians, encouraged early trade-ins and ignored information from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms about high-risk distribution channels.

So what exactly was wrong -- negligible -- in the actions of Glock? They made a legal sale to a police department. The PD sold the gun to a licensed FFL dealer who sold it to someone referred to as a "trader" but we assume that the dealer ran the Instant Check on the "trader" and he passed. It is the "trader" who apparently sold the gun in a private sale (it might have taken place at a gun-show but since respectable gun-show promoters generally only rent tables to FFL dealers -- or should, think gun-show "loophole") probably in the parking lot of the gun show.

Several things here: Firstly, the gun had passed through three legal owners before the last one sold to Furrow. That's a four-degree seperation from Glock. How can Glock possibly be expected to track one of their guns or be responsible for the transfer of that firearm after they legally sold it to the Cosmopolis, Washington police department?

The police department then sold the gun to a licensed dealer. Notice that the police department isn't a defendant in this suit. The dealer sold the gun to someone qualified (in that they passed the Instant Check) to purchase a firearm and it was he who sold the gun through a privately to Furrow. How is Glock somehow liable for what happened later with that gun?

Furthermore, the court thinks that gun makers should somehow second-guess the BATF. If the Brady Bunch or the BATF reports that a dealer has a violation in their past, and even if the BATF decides that these violations don't warrant pulling that dealer's license, then this court decision thinks the manufacturer or distributor shouldn't sell to that dealer. The fact that this would open the gun maker up to charges of interference with a company's ability to conduct business is lost on them. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

UCLA Professor Eugene Volokh has a series of posts starting here (and just keep scrolling) that pick the majority opinion (remember, it was only 2-1, not the full court) apart. Here's a quote from one of his great posts:

Here's the most specific point that the Ninth Circuit makes. (There are others, two of which I mention a few posts down, but this is the most concrete one; recall that these are allegations by the plaintiffs, but the Ninth Circuit says that if they are proven factually accurate, the jury may impose liability based on them.)

The ATF has provided Glock with the names of the distributors who are responsible for the sales of guns that end up in the hands of criminals, but Glock has ignored the information and continues to supply these same distributors.

Sounds bad, no? But note exactly what is being said. The ATF has not told Glock that these distributors are losing their federal firearms licenses. It hasn't told Glock that they're under indictment. It hasn't told Glock that ATF has found probable cause to believe they are acting criminally, or even negligently. It has only told Glock that somehow -- quite possibly with no fault on the distributor's part -- a disproportionate number of the guns are ending up in criminals' hands.

Maybe that's because the distributor is indeed acting criminally or negligently. But maybe he just sells guns in a part of town where there's an unusually high number of criminals; he may be acting completely properly (he can't tell which buyers are criminals or people buying on behalf of criminals, and which aren't) but it turns out that some fraction of the guns end up in criminals' hands.

To exclude the distributor under these circumstances, I think, would be a form of redlining: He'd lose his livelihood because of the part of town that he's in, and other residents (who may need guns to protect themselves from their criminal neighbors), would find it much harder to get such guns. If Glock did this on its own, it would be accused of unethical conduct, maybe even race discrimination (if the crime rates in the area are correlated, as they often are, with race). But that's what the Ninth Circuit says Glock must do, on pain of megabuck liability.

If the California legislature enacted a law saying that manufacturers had to cut off distributors in such situations -- with no proof, whether beyond a reasonable doubt, by a preponderance of the evidence, or anything else, of the distributor's misconduct -- I think people would quite properly object. There'd be zero due process here, zero protection for the distributor's rights, zero opportunity for the distributor to show that this isn't his fault, and zero concern for the distributor's lawful customers.

Reuters and the AP both presented one or two dissenting opinions in their news stories but oddly enough, the best -- or at least the most neutral spin on the story came from the SFGate story linked above.

From the Washington Post came this story about how gun grabbers and other liberals have discovered that if someone hasn't been charged with a crime, they have the right to purchase a gun and not have that information shared with law enforcement. Well, that's what it distills down to but a case could be made that when suspected terrorists purchase a gun legally, they should be tracked. Here's a quote:

The rules are the result of Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's interpretation of the Brady gun-control law, according to Justice Department officials, who said they are simply abiding by the federal firearms background-check system the statute established. The law bars authorities from sharing information with investigators about legal gun buyers and does not prohibit terrorism suspects from buying firearms, officials said.

"Being a suspected member of a terrorist organization doesn't disqualify a person from owning a gun any more than being under investigation for a non-terrorism felony would," a Justice Department official said in a written statement

Gun-control advocates said the rules endanger Americans by giving suspected terrorists an opportunity to evade scrutiny while obtaining weapons. The situation also has frustrated many law enforcement officials eager to monitor the whereabouts and activities of suspected terrorist operatives and their associates.

"This policy is mind-boggling," said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who has frequently clashed with Ashcroft on gun issues. "We could have a nationwide lookout for a known terrorist within our borders, but if he obtained a weapon, the Justice Department's policy is to refuse to reveal his location to law enforcement officials."

Well maybe. I suspect that the FBI probably does know what anyone on their suspect list is doing at almost all times. None the less, the rules were put in place to prevent abuse of power by the federal government and to prevent a permenant list of gun owners from being created that could someday be used as a basis for universal registration enforcement or worse, confiscation.

The general hysteria of the article indicates exactly where the writer of this story stands on the issue, constantly pointing out that enforcement of these clauses in the statute are based on Attorney General John Ashcroft's "narrow interpretation" and that he is a life-long member of the N.R.A. as if it's all a plot on his part.

The real problem is that once you give the "feds" the power to track certain people, they abuse that power and tend to expand on it to also include anyone they suspect of drugs, pornography, or anything else putting a bug up their butt. We've seen it already with the Patriot Act, Total Information Preparedness, etc. Once you give the government permission to monitor or track certain groups, they abuse it. Civil libertarians would be the first to complain, as they are right now over the FBI monitoring certain war protesters and groups.

For more on this issue see this post by Publicola and this one by Stop the Bleating.

No easy answers on this but I tend to side with restriction of government powers. Freedom is not free, as the saying goes, and those who relinquish it in persuit of security will wind-up with neither. There, I've butchered two quotes in one sentence. Next week I'll go for three...

In the meantime, I'm sure you'll be shocked -- shocked -- that the Twin Cities Press, which found every opportunity to oppose concealed carry in Minnesota, is now gleeful that the governor of neighboring Wisconsin just vetoed that state's new bill allowing concealed carry (CC). Here's a quote:

Like its problematic Minnesota twin, the Wisconsin concealed-carry handgun bill vetoed Tuesday by Gov. Jim Doyle protects only politicians who depend on the gun culture for support.

Doyle, a Democrat, is right to call the legislative bluff with this veto.

Actually, the bill also protects law-abiding citizens who might like to defend themselves against muggers, rapists, gangs, and murderers. Of course, this newspaper also predicted bloodshed in the streets if Minnesota allowed shall-issue CC permits. Doesn't seem to have happened. Nor has it happened in any other state that now allows CC.

It goes on:

Even if concealed carry were an effective public safety measure, the Wisconsin Personal Protection Act as written is deeply flawed. The legislation sends unfunded costs to county sheriff's departments to do background checks and process concealed weapon permit applications. The legislation doesn't address how local law enforcement agencies are to conduct thorough checks because medical confidentiality laws rightly shield the records of people with addiction or other mental health conditions.

So now they say that even if it will save lives, that isn't justification for the bill because it adds to the work load of county sheriff's departments, who by the way, would no doubt collect some of the fees paid for the permits. So this editorialist has decided to put a price on human life by stating that it's not worth saving because the process is "un-funded." Frankly, I'm willing to bet that running a background check is far cheaper than investigating a crime-scene!

But wait! There's more:

The Wisconsin bill, like Minnesota's, would not put the names of permit holders on the public record. We think that if your neighbor is packing, you have a right to know it.

Why? The whole idea of concealed-carry is that it is concealed. A far better situation than if everyone just straps on a gun-belt and shows their weapons in the open. Furthermore, why is my neighbor entitled to know my business? Should they know if I'm behind on my car payments? That I take high-blood-pressure medication? The decision to protect oneself and family and home is a personal one, not a public one.

Here's the clincher:

In a better world, public officials would be concentrating on positive, useful public policy decisions -- such as job creation, K-12 educational improvements, keeping down the cost of higher education, finding remedies for health care cost explosions and a host of genuine public safety challenges.

Wrong again! Government is there to provide for the safety and well-being of their subjects tax-payers and I can think of no more life-and-death issue than a person's ability to fend-off criminals and possibly save their own life. I don't think I've ever read an editorial in this paper that presented both sides of the CC issue. And I'm not going to start holding my breath now... Sorry, didn't mean for this to become a fisk. Then again, this is a blog so what the hell...

---

That was it for Yahoo. Here's some other items glommed from Keep and Bear Arms...

From the Chicago Sun-Times comes this story of a thief attempting to mug an off-duty cop at an ATM. Here's a quote:

The would-be robber allegedly approached the sergeant, brandished a handgun and took his money, said Officer Matt Jackson of News Affairs.

The sergeant announced he was a police officer and "was able to push the offender aside," falling to the ground in the process, Jackson said. The sergeant fired two shots in self-defense, Jackson said.

The man fled but was caught within minutes, Jackson said. Charged with armed robbery and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon was Tony Spencer, 40, of the 1800 block of North Monitor, Jackson said.

What catches my attention about that story is that when it's a cop defending himself from a thug, the newspaper doesn't fill the story with condemnation of guns and lack of gun control laws. Why shouldn't a private law-abiding citizen be allowed the same ability to protect himself?

The Constitution says he should be able to but liberal law-makers say otherwise. By the way, Chicago has the highest murder rate of any American city. They also have some of the most restrictive gun control measures in the Nation. Washington D.C. is number two. So do they!

Meanwhile back at the ranch, the city of Minneapolis is still whining about the new concealed carry law in Minnesota and according to WCCO has joined a lawsuit seeking to overturn it. Here's one paragraph that caught my eye:

It [the new CC law] also contends the law infringes on property rights of the church groups and the city by allowing people with guns to intrude without permission and without compensation on the property owners.

Folks, first of all, these "intruders" are concealed-carrying. Secondly, the Minnesota law allows those stores/churches/etc. to post a sign saying CC weapons are not permitted although it also requires them to "announce" such restrictions as well. Given how much church ministers like to blab, that shouldn't seem to be a problem. But what I would like to know is just what "compensation" churches think they're entitled to because someone -- they don't know whom, since we're talking about concealed carry here -- has caused actionable grounds for, I presume the story writer means damages...

The simple fact is that we live in a dangerous world and unfortunately that includes church shootings. From just last month, via CNN:

Three people were fatally shot Sunday in an apparent murder-suicide in a church in southeast Atlanta, police said.

What if one of the parishioners was armed? Maybe, maybe not -- truth be told -- they could have prevented this tragedy. Most people are good at heart. Allowing them to be "your back-up" police force will never be a disadvantage to law enforcement. They will never be a liability. Think of them as the "blued-cross" of defense.

Look people, the police can't be everywhere and I really don't think you want them to be, anyway. And let's face it, you can pass all the anti-gun laws you want but mutant criminals will never obey them. When is the last time you heard of an anti-arsen law preventing arsen? [Jeff, you just gave everyone whip-lash -- ed.] [There's a method to my madness -- js]

Let's think about arsen or just a simple -- very common -- house fire. The firemen come and do their thing but it is the good neighbors who console the victims and provide food, housing, and in rural communities, re-building muscle. Think of your armed neighbors the same way. They provide an additional layer of support for your defence when the over-worked, under-staffed, under-funded cops can't. I suppose we could all just hire more police but how much are you really willing to pay in taxes?

Most people want to help, and do, and I would welcome them. You know, the most important thing that seperates us human-types from lower life-forms (such as criminals and most (but not all) lower species) is our willingness to risk our lives to help others.

Mostly, this whole edition of my "Weekly Report" is about concealed carry. It isn't something to be feared -- it's back-up for all of us and a warning to all the scum who would hurt us. We are able to take care of ourselves and we are willing to come to each other's aid.

---

Okay, one more...

From WLBT in Mississippi:

We've [TV station WLBT] profiled him on Crimestoppers, now it appears robbery and assault suspect Lewis Chandler has harassed State Street resident and senior citizen Hebron Morris for the last time.

"He robbed me three times, tried twice to get into our backyard," Morris says. "We put up fencing, barbed wire. This guy jumps over fences to get to you."

Morris says on Thursday morning, Chandler appeared through one of two holes he'd cut in the garage to commit previous burglaries. Then he attacked Morris as he and his sister, Dean Alexander, were leaving the house.

And:

Chandler fled past Two Sisters restaurant, across a cemetery, through a hole in the cemetery's wire fence, and across a quiet section of Lamar Street. His journey came to an end across Lamar Street, behind a small white house next to the Church of Christ Holiness USA.

Mr. Morris caught up quickly. "When I heard Robert say, you stop or I'll blow your head off, I felt much better," Morris says, although Morris used his own shotgun to keep Chandler at bay.

Chandler is jailed on two counts of house burglary, three strong-arm robbery counts and one armed robbery count.

I wish Mr. Morris was my neighbor. Here's a stand-up guy who, as I detailed earlier in this post, represents the average law-abiding citizen who IS willing to get involved and protect and defend himself and his neighbors. There are a small few in the blogosphere who would try to define what "a man" is. Mr. Morris fits my definition.

---

These "Weekly" posts of mine generate almost NO email. I wish that were different. I also want to mention other pro-2a bloggers' posts about guns but none of them email me with links and I can't check everyone all the time... By the way, in all fairness, I would also mention ANTI-gun posts from such blogs that post them but they don't email me either. Folks, I spend a lot of time on this Monday report and I wish you all would contribute. I also need cool photos to use as backgrounds for the "tally."

Anyway, here's a very casual gleaming of what some other pro-2a bloggers are chatting about:

---

I've made it no secret here that my favorite rifle company is Marlin. One of mine, my 9mm Camp Gun, is on some "no-no" lists for two states. My buddy Kevin at The Smallest Minority reports that there's one that New Jersey doesn't like. And folks want to know why I moved the hell away from there...

Two weeks ago I reported on the Kansas town that decided that all residents should own guns. Blogger Rise of the Common Man is reporting that there's now a fine if you don't!

Here's a post from Wince and Nod on Agulia .22 Colibrí ammo. Folks, I don't even know what the hell that is... I'm so out of it.

Say Uncle IS TOO into more than the Second Amendment...

Well, at least Aubrey Turner says he has a new place to shoot... Seems like the drive from Texas to Virginia might take awhile but what do I know...

Craig at Boone Country is absolutely correct that the .357 is the ultimate ammo. I own two .357 revolvers, both from Smith & Wesson. Both supremely capable of eliminating "annoyances."

Okay, I've spent enough time here. I'll wrap it up with a plea that if you all find a newspaper article needing a critique, or an interesting link, or you are a blogger who's written something needing a wider audience... Will you please let me know?

---

Anyway, I guess this is the end of this week's edition of the "Weekly Report" and I thank you all for reading through all of it. I also thank you for stopping by in the first place. I'll see you soon...

---

Update, comments:

I found this the other day. It's the Massachussetts ACLU (so maybe we can cut them some slack). It's a link to their "Bill of Rights" page:

Massachusetts ACLU

There are 19 amendments listed (some grouchy scholars hold that the first 10 are the Bill of Rights, but who are we to know?).

Exactly one of them has a link to a long page explaining that no, that isn't what it really means.

Guess which one.

--Mike Z.

And when you follow their 2nd Amendment link you find a total distortion of that Amendment. Guess they won't be getting any of my money... Thanks Mike.

And:

We (meaning me and every other pro-2A blogger/blog-reader who knows about you) thoroughly enjoys your weekly post. It's required reading for most I would think. I appreciate what you do, I don't always have the stomach for reading all the crap the media disseminates. Thanks and keep it up.

As far as anti-gun types, I guess that some of them read your blog but don't really want to publicize it. Maybe, to get more attention to your WCOTB (Weekly Check on the Bias), you could go after the anti-gunners. Come to think of it I don't know of any anti-gun blogs, I'll have to search. It's funny that such an agenda, (the anti-gun one) with such national attention, doesn't seem to me to have any real broad based support aside form a few (percentage-wise) true believers.

BTW I'm jealous of your 9mm Camp Carbine. I've shot one and all I can say is fun fun fun and I don't think that Marlin is slling them anymore. I'm thinking of buying a Mech-Tech Carbine conversion unit for one of my pistols, it'll be close but not the same.

--Marc at Lay Lines

Thanks Marc, and now that you mention it, I can't actually think of a blog dedicated to promoting gun control either, though I'm sure there are some leftist bloggers out there who occasionally have anti-gun posts.

And another reader who wishes to remain annonymous sent me a snap of one of his family's "gun cabinets":

I don't have that many but I tend to just have them piled up in a closet. This is a much nicer arrangement... Thanks!