Alphecca

More on Gun Suits

A good and interesting article over at Find Law's about the decision by the Illinois Supreme Court dismissing two lawsuits against the firearms industry. Here it is. Writer Anthony J. Sebok does a good job of summing up WHY municipalities are losing these suits but he also raises important points about how or why they were:

In her opinions for the court, Justice Garman attacked the public nuisance argument at every level.

First, she doubted whether a "public right" was alleged to be involved - for an infringement of the "right to be free from the threat that members of the public may commit crimes against individuals" affects only a few unlucky individuals, not the general public. (In contrast, class public nuisances such as noxious fumes -- or even offensive conduct emanating from a "bawdy house" - affect all equally.)

But she also made it clear that even if the right to be free from the threat of crime were deemed a public right, the plaintiffs would still have lost - for other reasons.

Most "legal stuff" goes way over my head but Sebok does an excellent job of making the legalese understandable. As we always say around here, "read the whole thing..."

Another Lesson Learned...

While waiting on the line to go live with Cam, I slurped some coffee and "inhaled it" by accident. It gave me a coughing-fit for the whole segment. THAT will never happen again...

The Second Amendment

Confederate Yankee has a thoughtful post on why so-called "assault weapons" are the very type (among others) that the founders meant to protect in the Bill of Rights.

Weekly Check on the Bias...

Welcome to the November 29th edition of the Alphecca "Weekly Check on the Bias" by media regarding guns, gun-rights, and the Second Amendment. In the best tradition of public speaking, I usually try to start off with a quick, flippant joke but given the gravity of the news story involved that has somehow evolved from being a simple and tragic crime into a political football, I'll skip that.

The story is that of the hunter in a tree stand on private property in Wisconsin who was (or did) confront and then shoot at a party of eight hunters, killing six of them. This was the scene:

Most of you have already heard "the story" as much as is known or alleged, and I have no intention of trying to sort the facts of it out here. That's not the purpose of this report and I wasn't there... Unfortunately -- if not unexpectantly -- some in the press are now using this as a call for -- I'm sure you'll be shocked -- more gun control.

Much of the sudden interest in "liberal" media involves the rifle that the accused, Chai Vang, used; a Russian-built Saiga 7.62 mm, SKS-style semiautomatic rifle. Here's what the New York Times' resident "expert", Fox Butterfield (yes, I'm being sarcastic) has to report:

The rifle that killed five Wisconsin hunters and wounded three more on Sunday was an SKS 7.62-millimeter semiautomatic assault weapon not normally used in hunting animals.

"This is not a gun you go deer hunting with," said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry trade association.
Advertisement

The reason the SKS is not used by hunters, Mr. Keane said, is that it is designed for combat soldiers and is therefore underpowered for killing an animal like a deer with a single shot, the goal of good hunters.

"The ethics of hunting are you don't want the animal to suffer needlessly," Mr. Keane said.

[...]

The SKS is a precursor of the AK-47 assault rifle. Though it has a longer barrel, it otherwise looks much like the AK-47. It has become popular in the United States among gun collectors, target shooters and some criminals, because it sells for less than $200, or more than $100 less than an AK-47, said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group.

By executive order, President Bill Clinton barred the importing of Chinese- and Russian-made SKS rifles. But the Bush administration, Ms. Rand said, has specifically authorized the importing of SKS's from Yugoslavia and Albania.

So this shooting was President Bush's fault! Here are the actual facts that NY Times reporter Butterfield ignored:

1) The SKS rifle was NOT included in the now-expired phony "assault weapons ban" passed during President Clinton's reign. This is admitted even by Ms. Rand in the press-release issued by the Violence Policy Center here. Firearms similar to the SKS were.

2) The claim that the Bush administration "has specifically authorized" importing these rifles is based on the assertion that a trade bill allowed some goods to be imported from China and other countries and more importantly, that supposedly, Bush "allowed" the AWB to expire. Rand conveniently ignores the fact that an extension of the AWB never crossed the President's desk. She admits as much when she calls on him to:

Rand pointed out that the SKS assault rifle was not covered by the recently expired 1994 federal assault weapons ban. The VPC criticized the 1994 law as inadequate and favors enactment of a tougher version of the law that would ban the SKS and many other assault weapons that easily slipped through the old law's loopholes.

"Even though the 1994 law was easily circumvented by the gun industry, Congress has failed to move on a strong replacement law. President Bush could, with the stroke of a pen, tighten the import ban and stop the import of all foreign-made assault rifles," Rand said.

Somehow, Times reporter Butterfield also left those quotes out of his "article".

The Madison, Wisconsin newspaper, The Capital Times, joins the fray:

At the risk of noting the obvious, Sunday's deadly confrontation between a semiautomatic weapon-wielding Minnesotan and a group of hunters in northern Wisconsin can and should be factored into debates about the availability of semiautomatic and automatic weapons.

When hunters in Sawyer County confronted the Minnesotan - a 36-year-old Hmong immigrant named Chai Vang who was in a deer stand on private property and told him that he would have to leave - several of the greatest myths that are peddled by opponents of gun control exploded.

To wit:

• Myth One: A semiautomatic weapon is just another kind of gun.
When he was told to leave, in what may or may not have been a racially charged incident, Vang is reported to have responded by opening fire with a high-powered semiautomatic SKS carbine. By the time he was done, six hunters - five men and a woman - were dead or dying. Two others were badly wounded. Several had been shot more than once. Though advocates for no-holds-barred gun policies will claim that just as much havoc could have been wreaked with a standard hunting rifle, that claim is nonsense.

Semiautomatic weapons are increasingly popular among hunters of a not particularly sporting ilk. But it is comic to suggest that they are needed for hunting, unless the targets are people. In northern Wisconsin on Sunday, the toll was higher because the shooter had a semiautomatic weapon.

Does this mean that we need a blanket ban on semiautomatic and automatic assault weapons from here on out? Not necessarily. There are subtleties in this debate - especially when guns are modified. But the debate ought to be more realistic than it has been up to this point, and what happened in northern Wisconsin on Sunday ought to be factored into the debate.

• Myth Two: When people are well armed and trained to use their weapons, they can protect themselves against gun violence.

The victims in Sawyer County had access to guns and knew how to use them. Most of the dead had long experience with their weapons. But they were not prepared for a confrontation with a man who was ready to kill and was carrying a semiautomatic weapon.

The notion that more guns will ever translate into less violence has always been absurd. But the incident on Sunday should remind everyone of the extent to which this fantasy can be deadly.

Let's take their first myth which is that "A semiautomatic weapon is just another kind of gun." Well, unless they've just returned in the Time Tunnel from a century ago, it actually is not only just another "weapon" but is in fact the preponderant type firearm owned and used today. Main Stream Media loves the term "semi-automatic" because it sounds scary and evil but in fact, all it means is that when you pull the trigger, ONE bullet fires. The gun then reloads itself from a magazine that holds several (usually 5-10 in most rifles) rounds of ammunition.

I've said this before but although it isn't classified as a "semi-automatic", a revolver's cylinder uh, revolves, to place another bullet in-line with the breech and is ready to fire again too. The action, or trigger-pull and other mechanics might be different but the result is the same.

So when the Capital Times asks if we need a ban on all semi-automatics and feebly answers itself with "not necessarily" -- which could also mean "maybe", -- they imply that life would be better and safer if we all returned to and only had muzzle-loaders and bolt-action rifles.

Their second myth says that folks such as myself claim that when folks are allowed to arm themselves, all crime will disappear or be thwarted. Well, I can't speak for others but speaking for myself, NO I HAVE NOT! All I've said is that it gives the law-abiding a "chance" to defend and protect themselves.

But the un-named editorial writer goes even farthur and says that the claim of "more guns" equals "less violence" is "absurd". Really? Then how to explain the dramatic drop in violent crimes in most states that have allowed -- or recently allowed -- concealed-carry?

The editorialist also doesn't explain why Chicago and the District of Columbia, which both prohibit (ban) handguns for the law-abiding, are ranked first and second in firearm murders! Apparently they (he, she, it) hasn't read John R. Lott, Jr.'s two excellent books, More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns. By the way folks, you might consider buying those essential pro-gun arguments books and (after reading them yourselves) sending them to the editors of your local newspaper or TV station. It might help us all!

Getting back to subject... So IS the SKS an "assault weapon" rarely used for hunting? Fortunately, not all newspapers were buying it. From the Post-Crescent (WI):

The SKS, a medium-powered carbine usually equipped with a 10-round magazine, is cheap, dependable and commonly used for deer hunting, said Bill Kordus of Menasha, a state certified hunting education instructor and former president of the Twin City Rod and Gun Club.

“It’s the most common deer-hunting rifle out there. You can buy them for $100. There are millions of them,” Kordus said.

Kordus said the SKS did not fall under the nation’s recently expired ban on the sale of assault weapons. And he said it’s incorrect to label the hunting version of an SKS an assault weapon.

“A gun is considered a firearm and it is a tool used to hunt,” he said. “A weapon is anything used to kill or maim another human being.”

Mike Young, Outagamie County DNR warden, said he owns two SKS rifles.

“I place responsibility (for the Sawyer County shootings) on the hunter, not the gun,” he said.

Exactly! When you cut through all the din raised by the liberal media, what we really have is simply a tragic and terrible crime where the blame must lay with the perpetrator. I have my own thoughts on the matter but will confine them to another post. In the meantime, we see here the bias of two newspapers who have used the event as a spring-board for their own biases.

Here's what some other pro-2A bloggers are chatting up:

Countertop Chronicles reports on a stabbing at a gun-free church.

FreedomSight elaborates on a report that Tulsa police will be totin' AR-15's. Good choice, actually.

Well, it's not exactly about (or anything about) guns, but Hell in a Handbasket picks-up on a Field & Stream survival article about keeping yourself warm with, er, toilet paper. I found it interesting but then I still have all of my Y2K supplies rotting away in a closet somewhere...

Heartless Libertarian has a new scope. I like the rifle its on.

Publicola writes about the problem of the pro-2A crowd and public relations. He echos what I've said before about the need for us to get OUR message out and define the terms. Anyone can attach the label "high-powered" to a gun but what does it really mean or better yet, in the newspaper accounts I report on above, one claims the Wisconsin gun was "high-powered" and another says it isn't. One calls it an "assault weapon" and the other says otherwise...

Kevin of the blog The Smallest Minority has a review up at the Shooter's Carnival reviewing his new CMP Garand.

Lastly, because my ego demands it, remember that tomorrow (Tuesday, 2:20 pm EST) you can listen to me doing this "Weekly Check" LIVE (a regular feature!... *ahem*) on the Cam Edwards Show on NRA NEWS or on Sirius Satellite radio, channel 141. You know the expression, "a face made for radio"? I have a voice made for telegraph. But I do the best I can.

Thanks for stopping by!

School Bans Declaration of Independence

You know, I would be against a teacher proselytizing for any one religion but simply mentioning that our founders held religious beliefs is or should be perfectly fine. Not in California! From Sign-on San Diego:

A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God – including the Declaration of Independence.

Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.

"It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson.

"Williams wants to teach his students the true history of our country," he said. "There is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence."

It is this kind of preposterous behavior by the left that led many of us "dumb" 60 million people to vote for Bush this past election and until the left finally gets it, they will continue to lose elections. I'm sure the NEA, of which some 90% of its members vote Democratic, must be amazed.

OK Gun Law Scares Employers

A new law allowing folks in Oklahoma to exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves has been put on hold by a court after several companies in the state sued to block it from taking effect. From Yahoo/AP:

A new state law allowing employees to keep guns in their locked cars on company property has alarmed some of Oklahoma's biggest corporations and pitted them against gun enthusiasts.

The law was passed by the Legislature earlier this year and was scheduled to go into effect Nov. 1, but a federal judge blocked its enforcement while he considers a challenge brought by companies fearful that guns at work could lead to bloodshed.

Employers say the law interferes with their right to restrict what happens on company property.

Williams Cos., the Tulsa-based energy company, and oil giant ConocoPhillips Inc., with offices in Bartlesville and a refinery in Ponca City, are suing to stop the law from taking effect. The State Chamber, which represents some 2,000 businesses in Oklahoma and 26 other states, has also filed briefs against the law.

One spokesman for the State Chamber says that employees of these companies are getting into fights "all the time" which makes me think that mostly these companies are making rather poor hiring decisions or are sadly lacking in the supervision their management provides.

The law was proposed and passed following the firing of several employees of a company after weapons were found in their cars during a "drug sweep". I can see (although I'm against it) random testing on an individual but searching their cars?

At least there was some common sense from the sponsor of the bill:

Democratic state Sen. Frank Shurden, a co-author the law, said Oklahomans need guns for protection. "You get out in the dark in rural Oklahoma, you better be armed and ready for action," he said. "There's no telling what's going to happen."

As for the potential for workplace shootings, he said: "These are decent and responsible people. "We aren't going to have any shoot-outs like the Old West every time someone gets mad."

While a business certainly has the right to regulate what happens on their property, I think that having a firearm in your vehicle for protection (or just because you plan to go to the range after work) is perfectly reasonable. It's interesting to note that the original plaintiff, Whirlpool Corporation, has removed itself from the suit.

OJ Trial Dog Dies

Here's one for you from Contact Music.com:

The only eye-witness to the slaying of OJ SIMPSON's late wife NICOLE and her lover has died, aged 11.

KATO, Nicole's pet Akita dog, had been living with his former mistress' parents after her death in 1994.

The dog's barking and bloody footprints around the crime scene helped police establish a timeline for the murder, which helped them prove that OJ could have been at the scene.

In other news, OJ is still on his relentless search for the real killer, leaving no putting green unlooked-at.

Upon the Holiday...

First of all, I apologize for the light posting the past couple days (although I guess I can't really think of my "Weekly Check..." as light since it takes several hours to produce. Holiday weeks disjoint me with strange work schedules and such.

I actually have a pretty good life. I'm always broke but I manage to pay the rent (sometimes rather late but my landlords are very nice people too) in a nice apartment. I live in a great town in a terrific part of the country. I have a wonderful family and I wish I could be with my parents and brothers tomorrow but I will be spending it with some of my "extended family" and enjoying the Thanksgiving holiday. The weather is supposed to be terrible but it's all of a two minute walk to my cousin's house where we will be gathering.

We have brave soldiers, men and women fighting brutal battles half-way across the globe on our behalf as we sit-down tomorrow to feast on turkey and such.

There are families dealing with trajedy, or raising children with terrible disabilities, or living on the street. I don't have any magic that can ease their problems and I really wish I did. If you are one of these folks, know that as a religious man, I do say my prayers at night and I include all of you. I hope it gets better for you. I hope that someday this world is finally at peace although I suspect my future life expectancy isn't long enough for that. My sincere best wishes are with you.

If you are lucky enough to be joining with family or friends tomorrow, put aside your differences, don't even mention the just-past election, and just be thankful that you have each other. Even your weird "Uncle Bob" should get a hug.

Have a fun and warm holiday tomorrow. I wish all of you well. See you soon and thanks for stopping by.

It's All About Me...

A couple months ago I was pleased to be a guest on the Cam Edwards radio show [link here for streaming] and today I will be on again at about 2:40 Eastern Time. Think of this as a sort-of "live" version of my Weekly Check on the Bias against guns and gun owners. The show is carried on XFM (the satellite radio service) and you can hear how goofy I sound on radio.

Update after the interview:
It is absolutely amazing how quickly 15 minutes goes by. I noticed that the first time in September. Anyway, I probably did "er" and "uh" too much but I hope I sounded alright otherwise.

I'm pleased (and grateful to Cam, John, and Aimee) to say that this will be a weekly feature from now on. Think of it as the "Weekly Check on the Bias" live every Tuesday. Once I get into the rhythm of it, and can regulate the (my battle plan) presentation of two biased stories each week, I hope to do better. I had all these story printouts with highlighted stuff but I got a bit nervous...

Anyway, if you heard my segment, please do comment on how I did. Even if you think I sucked, it's important that I try to improve myself.

Weekly Check on the Bias...

Folks, we live in dangerous times. Violence can rear-it's-head at almost any moment, shattering the tranquility we've come to expect in our homes, our lives, our neighborhoods. But enough about watching the Pacers and Pistons play basketball...

Yes, it's time for the November 22nd edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias, where I examine some of the news stories and editorials for their slant on gun-rights and the Second Amendment.

Before starting, I should mention some commentary that widely made the rounds of the blogosphere and several newspapers. For those people who had a visceral dislike of outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft based on his unfettered support of the Second Amendment, I don't think they'll be any happier with the fact that Dr. Condoleeza Rice, replacing Colin Powell, is also a very strong 2-A supporter.

Reuters photo

Her views are pretty much the same based on an excerpt from her biography, Condi: The Condoleezza Rice Story by Antonia Felix published by Newmarket Press. From yesterday, here's a quote from the London Times:

Violence was turning her hometown into "Bombingham" as Alabama's governor George Wallace fought a federal court order to integrate the city's schools. The Ku Klux Klan bombed the homes of blacks who were beginning to move into white neighbourhoods. Among the targets was the home of Arthur Shores, a veteran civil rights lawyer and friend of the Rices. Condi and her parents took food and clothes over to his family.

With the bombings came marauding groups of armed white vigilantes called "nightriders" who drove through black neighbourhoods shooting and starting fires. John Rice and his neighbours guarded the streets at night with shotguns.

The memory of her father out on patrol lies behind Rice's opposition to gun control today. Had those guns been registered, she argues, Bull Connor would have had a legal right to take them away, thereby removing one of the black community's only means of defence. "I have a sort of pure second amendment view of the right to bear arms," she said in 2001.

It's good to have gun-rights friends in high places! While her position would not directly relate to anything concerning gun-control, there's that big "what-if" the UN tries to implement their dream of worldwide small-arms gun-control. I shudder to think what a cabinet put together by Kerry would have looked like...

Meanwhile, there are indications that several issues of concern to gun owners that faded-off during the past year will soon be revisited. From today's Denver Post:

Emboldened by the results of the month's elections, the nation's largest gun lobby will push again for a federal law shielding gunmakers and sellers from lawsuits.

When the new Congress convenes in January, the National Rifle Association says, it will have four more pro-gun senators. The trade group hopes that will help make the difference in passing a bill that died in the Senate in March.

The news story itself is quite fair, given the number of quotes from both supporters and opponents of this and other issues raised. But I did wonder about one line:

The idea of lawsuit immunity pits gun owners and hunters in rural areas against city dwellers often beset by violence. The NRA wants a law that would exempt manufacturers from civil lawsuits, except when they violate local, state or federal law.

In actuality, it is NOT either of these "demographics" that are for or against the bill. I believe (opinion time here...) it's all about being fair to gun makers who manufacter and distribute a legal product that is inherently dangerous. The group that is most against such a bill shielding them from frivolous lawsuits are the American Trial Lawyers, who are trying to sue for any moneys they can. Most of the cities or municipalities that have filed suits agains gun companies have done so only AFTER they were approached by lawyers who dangled a green carrot before their eyes.

The argument that cities should somehow sue to recover expenses involved in the criminal misuse of firearms falls apart if we return to the "car scenario". Do local governments attempt to sue automakers when cars cause accidents because of careless driving or by drunk drivers? I haven't seen it yet although maybe that's around the corner.

The Denver Post story also says:

The 10-year-old assault weapons ban automatically expired in September because it was not renewed. It banned 19 named semi-automatic weapons and other guns with military- type features such as a grenade launcher, a fixed magazine in excess of five rounds or a protruding pistol grip. It also banned high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as those used in the Columbine shootings.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., said she plans to reintroduce the assault weapons ban, tweaking it to outlaw weapons with certain characteristics instead of certain named weapons. It's unlikely to pass, given Congress' new makeup, but introducing it will force lawmakers to stake out a position.

Two things to note: I am SURE that McCarthy WILL (along with the usual suspects) try to get the AWB through the house again in January but a casual search of her web site and news stories isn't bringing up any such recent statement. Indeed, try a Yahoo search under news for McCarthy brings up nothing at the moment, indicating she's not doing much of anything...

As for the gratuitous mention of Columbine, I wouldn't get to worked up over that because this IS a Colorado newspaper afterall.

Speaking of shielding gun makers, I reported last week on this AP story:

The Illinois Supreme Court threw out two lawsuits accusing gunmakers of knowingly letting weapons fall into the hands of gang members and other criminals, ruling Thursday that the manufacturers cannot legally be blamed for street violence.
[...]
The lawsuits, filed by the city of Chicago and victims of shootings, claimed the defendants created a public nuisance by pouring guns into the Chicago area that are used to kill.

"The mere fact that defendants' conduct in their plants, offices, and stores puts guns into the stream of commerce does not state a claim for public nuisance," the court said. "It is the presence and use of the guns within the city of Chicago that constitutes the alleged nuisance."

This, of course, is a good thing. So how did the New York Times handle the same story? How about with a brief titled, Illinois Ruling Sides With Gun makers:

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that gun makers and dealers cannot be held responsible for crimes committed with the weapons they make and sell.

In a unanimous decision, the justices said they did not have legal authority to tighten restrictions on the manufacture and sale of guns.

The Times almost sounded wistful about it. To their credit though, they did quote the court as saying that a change in law "of this magnitude... must be the work of the Legislature, brought about by the political process, not the work of the courts."

Now, let's look at some REAL BIAS. Here's how the Chicago Sun-Times reported it:

In a crushing defeat for gun control advocates, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed two lawsuits against the firearms industry Thursday, prompting the father of 19-year-old shooting victim Andrew Young to say the justices "will have some of that blood on their hands now."

And that's just the FIRST PARAGRAPH! Carrying on in like vein, the "story" continues:

Steve Young, whose son Andrew was killed in 1996 by a gang member who got a gun through a middleman, said he was astounded.

"After my son died, I was so devastated and the pain was so great," said Young, a plaintiff in the families' lawsuit. "I could not understand why all these guns were on the street. Here we are six years after the suit was filed and eight years after my son died and some people still don't get it, namely the Illinois Supreme Court."

Indeed, it isn't until about halfway through the artricle that the court is quoted with their rational in the ruling and then there's a quick rejoiner from the "special concurrence" by several of the judges alarmed at the proliferation of guns in "gun free" Chicago.

The Sun-Times even has a handy chart of statistics provided by the Brady Bunch showing how badly gun-control advocates have been doing in the courts and yet they then have this quote in the story:

Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the rulings were "very much out of step" with courts in other parts of the country.

Well, apparently not, Dennis, since in most courts around the country these suits have been getting trounced!

The Chicago Sun-Times then had a follow-up story a couple days later. Again folks, we're talking about something labeled as "news", not editorial content. In this case the AP writer, Don Babwin, who managed not to find a single quote from anyone representing opposition to efforts to sue the gun makers. Again, heart-strings are played in the first paragraph:

Maybe it will be another parent who receives the worst news possible, that their child has been fatally shot. Maybe it will be a lawmaker. Or one of the college kids Steve Young teaches about guns and the law.

And:

"Sooner or later, someone is going to break through and these guys (gun dealers) will be held accountable for what they've done," Young said.

Arlene Macias wondered after the court dismissed the cases whether the one good thing that could come out of her son's death-- a law that might keep some cheap handguns off the streets-- was forever lost.

"When you really think about this, it's madness," said Macias, who had been a plaintiff in the case but was dropped from the lawsuit because the gun used to kill her 19-year-old son, Miguel, was never found. "My son died for no reason."
[...]
Young cried when he heard the court's rulings, but also knew he would continue to fight.

"You don't give up," he said. "Never, never."

This isn't reporting, it's a screenplay for a "Movie of the Week". It's two pure examples of a major newspaper and it's writers publishing completely biased stories about a state supreme court decision. That's what this (almost) weekly thing I do here is all about.

Well, from one extreme to another, how about a quick look (via the NRA) of a new vanity license-plate available in Mississippi?

Neat, huh? It also sends a not-too-subtle message to would-be criminals to perhaps find someone else to victimize. Proceeds go to a good cause:

The specialized tags cost $31, with $24 of that total being deposited into the NRA Foundation State Fund Account for Mississippi to be used for Foundation-related projects such as youth hunter education, firearms safety training and shooting range development.

Well okay, so it isn't exactly a news story and it does come from the NRA but heck, I'm a blogger so I can be as biased as I want around here...

So how about instead an article from the Macon Telegraph (GA) that covers the basics of a child's first rifle?

Does that young person really want a gun and really want to shoot or hunt? Some don't and never will be and shame on the parent who forces this issue simply because it's the parent's wish and not that of the young person.

Assuming that the youngster is interested in hunting and shooting, and is mature enough to handle the responsibility, there are other issues.

Safety is first on the list. That young person should complete the hunter safety course before anyone goes shopping for a gun. And if it turns out that the beginner is interested in shooting but not hunting, that's OK.

Don't force it, Dad. Many people love to punch holes in paper targets and make tin cans bounce all over the terrain but have no interest in killing game. Nothing wrong with that.

The first rifle should be a rimfire. Until a couple of years ago, the only choice would have been a .22. With the arrival of the .17 calibers we now have other rimfire choices. Even so, I believe that the first rifle should be a .22. The .17 with its greater power, noise and velocity can come later.

The article goes on with more advice. I mention a story like this only because it's the type of thing you will only find in a newspaper from a rural area. You're not likely to see it reprinted in -- say -- the L.A. Times. And it indicates the natural bias of the large, national newspapers regarding firearms. True, usually (not always) we can count on the Washington Times or the New York Post to be on "our side" of the gun-control issue but they are far and few between.

Much more likely you will find frequent mentions of gun violence in the nationals with very rare appearences of a story reporting on the defensive (i.e. "good") use of a gun and its owner. That's the real bias. It's not always simply the slant of an article but is rather what articles the newspaper editor chooses to run with. And if non-gun owners only read [in these papers] about the negatives of firearms or more properly, their use, can we really expect them to side with us in the fight for protecting the Second Amendment?

This is an area that "needs work" on our part; bombarding the editors with links to the positive aspects of the Second Amendment in an attempt to get them to occasionally mention them.

There isn't much in the papers these days about proposed gun-control legislation. I could cite several reasons such as that most lawmakers are home for the holidays. It could also be that the success that conservatives had in the recent elections might make liberal Democrats a little "gun shy" of pushing for any new measures right now.

Fortunately, just to remind us of how much our tax-payer dollars are being abused, National Public Radio featured a spot last Friday during their show "All Things Considered" titled Shopping For Assault Weapons. Use that link to listen to NPR and reporter Wade Goodwyn confirm the fact that both of them are incapable of producing a balanced, unbiased report. I've listened to it three times (not easy on a dial-up connection) and here are the highlights: NPR correspondant Goodwyn finds a willing participant named Shawn Purkey and they visit a Texas gunshop following the sunset of the phony "assault weapons ban". Purkey (rhymes with turkey) wants to buy a pre-ban Colt AR-15.

Commentator and alleged reporter Goodwyn accompany him to a Texas gunshop where the clerk presents him with a Colt AR-15. Purkey is allowed to try the firearm out at the store's range. Here's a quote from Goodwyn:

So you want to buy a rifle like our troops are using over in Iraq?

The dealer presents Purkey with the AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine. Here are some more quotes from Goodwyn (the "reporter") in this segment:

[Purkey] fires neat little holes in the center of the paperman's target [a silhouette target 100 yards away].

Someone in the next room you want to kill? There's no reason for you to go in there.

[Purkey buys the gun and] stashed it under the backseat of his extended-cab...

They even provide sound effects as Purkey tries out the gun at the store's range. Goodwyn says:

See if you can count the shots over the next 12 seconds.

Purkey fired 30 shots during that time, which almost anyone could do with any hi-capacity gun. When you hear it on the tape, I could swear it sounded like it was fed through a reverberation or echo machine to make it sound like something from a dishonest news show such as Dateline NBC. Indeed, I've taken my .45 with it's 15-round magazine and fired them off in about 5 seconds. So what? This has NOTHING to do with the firearm. It has everything to do with NPR and their reporter Goodwyn trying to scare their listeners over the phony AWB ban.

This segment has lots of recorded noises of gun stuff, sure to frighten any liberal.

That's Purkey in the NPR story. Since NPR is funded in part by tax-payers, I don't feel bad or guilty of using their photo. I and we helped pay for it. In a way, I feel badly for him because I think he was used by NPR to further their agenda, but he really should have known they would.

Not that any of us real people here in the USA should be surprised, but this NPR "report" reeks of bias. What bothers me most is not that a national news source is biased, but that our tax-payer dollars help support such an anti-American endeavor.

All right. Let's turn to some other stuff...

This next story isn't about bias so much as about misused resources. The Miami Herald had a story yesterday about a crime-infested city in Florida, Opa-locka. The city doesn't have enough money to fully fund their police department, the story relates. The cops there run from one criminal investigation to another. I only bring this story up because near the end of it we read:

While some officers attribute many of their ills to a lack of resources, others take a more aggressive approach to law enforcement duties.

Officers Kenneth Le Meur and Faulkner, for example, made 64 and 32 arrests, respectively, during the first six months of the year, according to department statistics.

Le Meur, a nine-year veteran, also issued 86 tickets for speeding and 78 for seat-belt violations.

Using a laptop computer and ticket-writing software he bought himself, Le Meur issued 60 percent of the traffic tickets in 2003, according to the FDLE report.

Uh, perhaps Le Meur might spend a little less time looking for seat-belt violations and a little more for, oh -- let's go out on a limb -- say CRIME? There, glad I was able to help the city out with some free consulting.

Here's some more: Since Florida allows it, why not encourage the residents of Opa-locka to take a more proactive stance in their own protection by purchasing a firearm. Here's an example of why from Shawnee, OK (didn't they just have a gun show there?) where a couple returned home to find an uninvited guest. From KOTV News:

Shawnee police say a suspected burglar is recovering from a gunshot wound in the stomach after he was shot last night.

Shawnee Police Lieutenant Conny Clay says a woman and an acquaintance came to the woman's home and found the intruder in the residence. Clay says the man then shot the intruder once in the stomach.

Clay says the intruder was taken to the O-U Medical Center in Oklahoma City, where he was stabilized. His name was not released.

Eventually the word gets out that a town has an unusually high number of armed residents and the mutants will move-off to happier hunting grounds.

So that's what is happening "out there". But there's really much more! Here are some links to what the great bloggers (far better at this than me) are chatting about:

Posse Incitatus offers his review of the Ruger KP89. The trigger gets a "thumbs down" but otherwise, he likes the gun.

Say Uncle reports on a deadly deadly hunting dispute and all over a tree-stand.

Via one of our best advocates, John R. Lott, I found this commentary by Audrey Hudson about the Illinois court decision regarding gun suits and gun makers.

Okay, this isn't actually about gun stuff but Banana Oil has a post about sci-fi that I enjoyed mightily. Here it is.

Posse Incitatus wants Condi Rice in the White House. I don't have a problem with that.

Once again, Publicola has a great post about the possible shame of some gun owners and he makes his points well. This is another blog you should all be reading.

As many readers know, I have a Marlin .9mm Camp Carbine. Kim du Toit has one better, the .45 version. Damn, so many guns and so little time and money.

Anyway, I better get this up now so thanks to all of you for stopping by. I will post details of my radio show appearance tomorrow morning. My best to you.

Update: I will be on the Cam Edwards radio show tomorrow at about 2:40 PM and will probably be on every Tuesday at around that time to blather about Media Bias against guns. I'll put up a link to the NRA link to the show tomorrow morning.

Soon...

I'm working on the Weekly Report this morning in between some errands (dropping the car off at the garage, etc.) and it should be up early afternoon.

End of the Week...

So once again it is the end of the week. As usual, I try to take the weekends off to relax and recharge my batteries. I'm always surprised at what posts draw comments and which ones (I thought the previous one would, since I was right on top of the story) don't get a glance...

Anyway, I've been given an enticing proposition to think over during the next couple days and while my work schedule says no, my ego says yes. That's all I can say about it for now. It doesn't mean I quit my day job but it does mean that I might attain much higher visibility in the gun-rights arena and it is very flattering. I've been interviewed on radio before but this would be a weekly segment, a "Weekly Check on the Bias" live.

It doesn't pay, it's just a chance to let me get my message out each week about the intense bias that the MSM (Main Stream Media) has against gun owners and folks who just plain respect and understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

I'm sure, of course, that I will say "yes" but I have to still think it through.

In the meantime, I again thank the kind folks who hit the tipping-point during the past few weeks. I don't consider your donations as something to spend on a new camera or gun. I need the money to pay the electric bill, ISP bill, food bills, and such. I am one of those folks who live week-to-week. It really makes a difference in my life when you help out.

Finally, I wish you all a wonderful weekend and I offer my prayers and good thoughts to our brave soldiers overseas. God bless our great country and the opportunities it offers. I wish all of you and your loved ones (and your pets) well. Thanks for stopping by!

Gun Grabbers Lose in Illinois

Score another victory for common sense in Illinois, this time regarding the City of Chicago's lawsuit against gunmakers. From Yahoo/AP:

The Illinois Supreme Court threw out two lawsuits accusing gunmakers of knowingly letting weapons fall into the hands of gang members and other criminals, ruling Thursday that the manufacturers cannot legally be blamed for street violence.

Both rulings were unanimous, but five of the seven justices were so disturbed by allegations raised in the case that they wrote a separate opinion urging the Legislature to create tougher gun regulations.

The lawsuits, filed by the city of Chicago and victims of shootings, claimed the defendants created a public nuisance by pouring guns into the Chicago area that are used to kill.

"The mere fact that defendants' conduct in their plants, offices, and stores puts guns into the stream of commerce does not state a claim for public nuisance," the court said. "It is the presence and use of the guns within the city of Chicago that constitutes the alleged nuisance."

The city sought $433 million, the amount it claims it paid in law enforcement and emergency medical treatment for gun violence over four years. The families were seeking unspecified damages.

Similar lawsuits had been filed around the country. An earlier wave of product-liability lawsuits — alleging that guns are unreasonably dangerous — failed.

I guess the justices didn't buy the image of Smith & Wesson et al emptying cartons filled with guns, "pouring guns into the streets", and the ruling rightly states that the problem isn't the making of a firearm, it's the misuse of it by mutants.

Needless to say, there were dissenters:

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley called the ruling disheartening.

"More drug dealers and gang bangers are buying more guns," Daley said. "It has nothing to do with the Constitution, and it has nothing to do with hunters and sportsmen and collectors. It's a safety issue."

If prescription drugs and the auto industry can be regulated, the gun industry should be as well, the mayor said.

I'm wondering exactly how Daley could possibly "regulate" guns anymore than he already has, what with an outright BAN against them in Chicago. Needless to say, it is only the mutants who still have them.

The anti-gun forces in Illinois have been taking a beating lately what with the other victory I reported on Wednesday.

National Ammo Day

I did my shopping on my day off this a few days ago. I headed to Wal-Mart and picked up a box (550 rounds) of .22 Remington Goldens and a ream of printer paper to print up more targets. Usually I buy from gun shops but I was in West Leb anyway. Also, I wanted to beat the rush!

And speaking of Birthdays, which I wasn't, Kim du Toit turns fifty today. So he's a month younger than me. I can call him a young whipper-snapper!

Dept. of Stupid Criminals

Guy robs bank, goes to barber shop, smokes, gets into fight... From the Toronto Star:

Police caught a suspected bank robber yesterday when he went for a haircut and instead got into a fight with the barber.

The brawl spilled out onto the sidewalk, and when police arrived to bust it up, the man had $2,500 stuffed in his pockets — many bills that were traced to the holdup earlier that day, police say.

At 2:20 Tuesday afternoon, a man walked into Joe's Barber Salon on Dundas St. W., near Clendenan Ave., puffing on a cigarette. When barber Joseph Cini asked him to butt out, the man became angry.

"I told him to take the cigarette out. I had some food in my mouth and he said, `You're spitting on me.' He sort of attacked me. Somebody else called police," Cini, 69, said yesterday.

Read the whole thing, Cini sounds like a stand-up guy and the mutant sounds like an idiot.

This Isn't Hunting...

Folks, I've said here before that I'm not a hunter anymore but I support it (as any casual reader here can tell) a LOT. Just as shooting animals kept in a fenced lot (even if it's several acres) isn't "hunting", neither is this:

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Hunters soon may be able to sit at their computers and blast away at animals on a Texas ranch via the Internet, a prospect that has state wildlife officials up in arms.

A controversial Web site, Live-Shot.com, already offers target practice with a .22 caliber rifle and could soon let hunters shoot at deer, antelope and wild pigs, site creator John Underwood said on Tuesday.

[...]

Underwood, an estimator for a San Antonio, Texas auto body shop, has invested $10,000 to build a platform for a rifle and camera that can be remotely aimed on his 330-acre (133-hectare) southwest Texas ranch by anyone on the Internet anywhere in the world.

I've only hunted a couple times but I can tell you this from my talks with others: Hunting is much more than just sitting there pulling the trigger. It's about trekking out there in the forest, getting back to nature (to use a stupid leftist term) and sweating or freezing or just feeling the world around you as you track an animal that will put food on your table, challenge you in doing it, and force you to leave your comfortable home to do it. It's about appreciating the great outdoors.
Real hunting means getting up really early and heading out with your dad or son or mom and learning how to track an animal, the patience to wait for it to come by your stand, the skill to know your rifle, the thrill to feel the recoil as your eye and your gun reward your diligence.

It's a way to connect with your family and friends, a sport that pits you against the prey, it's almost a religion. Schools in areas that still respect hunting actually give the kids time off at the start of the season.

Yeah, this company will send you the stuffed-head if you like, or butcher the meat and mail it to you. That's not quite the same thing as actually being outdoors and stalking and shooting and dragging and then bringing it -- your prize -- to the weigh-station, carving it up (or paying a local to do it) and being able to brag about your triumph to everyone for years to come.

And how lame is "remote" target shooting? Where's the fun of loading a magazine, pinning up the target, smelling the gunsmoke, holding the bullet-riddled target in your hand, and cleaning your rifle afterwards?

Hunting and shooting is much more than just sitting in front of an effing computer.

I hope and doubt that most people reading this will consider this new computer type "remote shooting" to be "hunting". Maybe I'm wrong and you can all trash me in the comments.

Take your best shot...

Update 11/18: Matt Lauer of the Today Show just interviewed the spokesman of the remote hunting site. Lauer seemed to hold his contempt in check but did ask, "Doesn't a hunter have the responsibility to be present -- to honor the animal he's taking?" or something like that (it was actually a quote he was reading). The spokesman said that there are disabled folks who can't go hunting in a traditional fashion. That was pretty much the whole interview other than that when the "remote hunting" operation got underway, the .22 would be changed to a higher caliber rifle.

Some other bloggers have noticed the story too, including Aubrey Turner.

Update 11/19: My buddy Ken at Second Breakfast is offering his own thoughts based on his heartfelt personal familial experience about the issue of hunting by computer. So Ken, how do you really feel?

Dumb?

Cathy Young has an article in Reason about the left's new mantra that Bush voters are dumb. While she dispells some of the myths, Dean Esmay makes the case that there's some dumbness on both sides of the voting electorate. He finds that somewhat comforting.

Again, an interesting "tag-team" of posts you should read...

Iraq and Afghanistan

Over at Chicago Boyz, Michael Hiteshew has a rather pessimistic post about our chances in Iraq vis-a-vis our success in Afghanistan. He makes some valid points.

Taking that as a jumping off point, James at Hell in a Handbasket has the first of several thoughtful posts on why the two countries are different. If I'm reading him correctly, the numerous different factions (warlords?) are actually an advantage. Interesting.

Read both posts.

Illinois Lawmakers Make the Correct Call

Lawmakers in Illinois have voted to overrule the veto of a bill by the anti-gun governor of the state. From the AP:

Illinois lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to give legal protection to homeowners who violate handgun bans to shoot burglars, overriding Gov. Rod Blagojevich's veto of legislation that became a symbol in the tug-of-war over gun control.

The legislation says that people who shoot intruders on their property cannot be convicted of violating local gun bans, but it does not prevent charges if prosecutors believe the shooting itself was a crime.

Backers saw the measure as a statement of support for people who defend themselves in their own homes, while opponents said it was an attempt to undercut local gun laws.

The measure was inspired by the case of a Wilmette restaurant owner who shot a burglar who had broken into his home twice. County prosecutors declined to press charges for the shooting, but Wilmette officials charged the restaurateur with violating the city's handgun ban.

About half a dozen Illinois cities, including Chicago, ban handguns, according to the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

This is only justice at work. For a local city or town to enact regulations that exceed those set by the state is flat-out wrong. See also my post from last week about how a court in Colorado does not share the same opinion.

Don't Eat Nemo!

The PETA crowd is at it again. Now they're worried about the deep, sensitive feelings and lofty thoughts that flounder and brook trout have... From AP/Yahoo:

Touting tofu chowder and vegetarian sushi as alternatives, animal-rights activists have launched a novel campaign arguing that fish — contrary to stereotype — are intelligent, sensitive animals no more deserving of being eaten than a pet dog or cat.

Called the Fish Empathy Project, the campaign reflects a strategy shift by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals as it challenges a diet component widely viewed as nutritious and uncontroversial.

"No one would ever put a hook through a dog's or cat's mouth," said Bruce Friedrich, PETA's director of vegan outreach. "Once people start to understand that fish, although they come in different packaging, are just as intelligent, they'll stop eating them."

Because let's face it, we all enjoy watching the clever games that fish invent among themselves, or the way they intuitively know exactly what we're thinking. Heck, mount one on your wall and it'll start singing... I suspect the PETA types may have been watching too many movies:

Someone needs to remind them that Nemo was just a cartoon character and that if they don't stop going over-the-top on every issue, that is how they'll be viewed, too.

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the November 15th edition of my (almost) Weekly Check on the Bias by media regarding guns and the Second Amendment.

Deer hunting season is underway in most states and there's something comforting about hearing the crack of rifles in the distance as men, women, and often their children engage in one of the oldest activities here in America. (No, not election campaigning! Mercifully, that one's over with for now...) Hunting and putting food on the table (can you believe that Thanks Giving is just over a week away?) helps reconnect us to the roots of our nation, before there were Shaws and Winn Dixies every few towns and if you wanted to eat and feed your family, you HAD to hunt, or at least raise something you had to butcher yourself. It's also still (not withstanding the rising cost of many state hunting licenses) the most economical way to fill a freezer for the Winter.

Here's how things used to be, as captured by artist Karl Bodner at Wincher's Creek in the upper part of the Missouri River (this is only a partial of the entire etching circa 1851?) as shown in the book The Discovery of the World by Albert Bettex.

Elks and bison indeed. Actually, considering the exploding deer population in many states, it still is!

This is the time of year when most local (smallish) newspapers treat hunting as a way of life for many. A quick search on Yahoo under "hunting season" in the news section will turn up many MANY pro-hunting, unbiased articles. Needless to say, don't look for such in the New York Times... I won't list them here, rather I'll concentrate on a couple of unusual ones. First up, a nice snarky comment for the Illinois Governor from the Peoria Journal-Star (IL):

Deer hunting politician

Minnesota Gov. Tom Pawlenty shot a 4-point buck on opening day of his state's firearm season last weekend. That got us wondering whether Gov. Blagojevich might spend some time in a tree stand when Illinois firearm season opens Friday?

Nah, might muss his hair.

As my mentor might say, "Heh".

As more city mice move to rural areas and try to tell the country mice how to live, the issue of posting one's property often comes up. One town in Missouri had several residents who wanted to post "no hunting" signs in their yards. The town council voted it down but for a much different reason than to protect hunting; it was to protect the image of the town as a place to move to because it didn't have a hunting "problem". From St. Louis Today:

Clarkson Valley residents will not be allowed to have "No trespassing, no hunting" signs in their yards during deer hunting season, though a few residents were allowed such signs briefly in October.

The Board of Aldermen on Nov. 2 voted 3-2 to reject a proposed amendment to the city's sign law to allow such signs. Under the proposal, the signs would have been allowed from a week before through a week after the archery hunting season for deer.
[...]
Twichell said she thought the sign proposal "would have been a way to resolve requests from residents who would like to have these signs."

But Schiller said the signs could deter potential homebuyers in the city.

"If I was looking for a home to buy and I saw signs saying 'No trespassing, no hunting,' I would assume there was a problem — when there's not — and think twice about buying a house there," she said.

In Vermont (I checked with the local town clerk) you only have to file a $5.00 dollar fee and "register" your property as being posted, and then you can put up posted signs. Hunters are supposed to (but often don't) stop by the town hall to review the list of posted properties.

This is a looming problem as the NYC/LA crowd decides (and can afford to) buy up huge tracts of old farms and forest so they can experience the simple, "rural" life. But please don't clutter it up with actual rural natives who might want to put food on their table or just hike and fish on the property. It's the typical hypocrisy of the left, the limousine liberals who infect our great nation and work to prevent all the poor from actually enjoying our open spaces. Media mogul Ted Turner is the ultimate worst offender, owning over a million acres of land. It's really too bad that he didn't follow his father's footsteps.

Michigan has a large and proud population of hunters. You wouldn't know it from this repulsive op-ed from the Detroit News:

This is the moment when the guy I'll call Dave -- because that is his name -- devolves from a sophisticated man of words and letters into a savage hunter of helpless creatures.

Oops. I meant to write "evolves" and "intrepid" hunter of "wild creatures," but my fingers slipped.

But such is my point: Hunting season separates those of us who want to hug gentle Bambi from those who want to kill and eat him, after skinning him and dressing him and hanging him by his dainty hooves in the garage.

Gosh, not too many loaded phrases there! And then the marketing department of the Detroit News wonders why their rag sells so poorly in the "finger-regions" of the state. Of course, the Detroit News editoral writers find no problem making excuses for the mutants of their city that hunt human prey all the while calling for more gun-control measures.

To end on a good note, up in Wisconsin where they have an excellent program that promotes the donation of deer meat by hunters, thanks to a record harvest so far, food-banks are seeing a record amount of donations. From the Duluth News-Tribune:

MILWAUKEE - Food pantries are reaping the rewards of Wisconsin's early hunting season and an overpopulation of deer.

State hunters had donated nearly 4,000 by the start of last week to food pantries as part of the state's venison donation program, said Laurie Fike of the state Department of Natural Resources.

She said when the state's traditional nine-day gun season ends this month, the figure easily could top an all-time high of 10,000 deer.

Hunters typically give away about two-thirds of their annual kill. The meat is taken to butcher shops throughout the state and ground for distribution to charitable groups.

Donations rose to 6,771 last year after testing found that chronic wasting disease was limited to some areas and more pantries joined the program.

An early gun hunt in more than half the state's deer management units and the renewal of earn-a-buck rules in more than two dozen units also probably will boost venison donations, Fike said.

Earn-a-buck requires hunters to tag an antlerless deer before they an harvest a buck. Many hunters are donating the antlerless deer, said Bryan Woodbury, a DNR biologist and wildlife damage specialist.

A total of 122 butcher shops in 53 counties outside the disease zone are taking part in the donation program this year, up from 117 in 2003. Each already had received more than 100 deer by Nov. 8.

Each deer typically provides 40-45 pounds of ground meat. In the first four years of the DNR-sponsored program, pantries distributed more than 1 million pounds of ground venison.

You won't find the New York Times mentioning or providing any positive commentary on this effort either. So what is the Old Gray Lady chattering about? Well... They're still blathering about the election of two weeks ago. Columnist Nicholas Kristof examines the role that gun control played in the election:

Nothing kills Democratic candidates' prospects more than guns. If it weren't for guns, President-elect Kerry might now be conferring with incoming Senate Majority Leader Daschle.

Since the Brady Bill took effect in 1994, gun-control efforts have been a catastrophe for Democrats. They have accomplished almost nothing nationally, other than giving a big boost to the Republicans. Mr. Kerry tried to get around the problem by blasting away at small animals, but nervous Red Staters still suspected Democrats of plotting to seize guns.

Moreover, it's clear that in this political climate, further efforts at gun control are a nonstarter. You can talk until you're blue in the face about the 30,000 gun deaths each year, about children who are nine times as likely to die in a gun accident in America as elsewhere in the developed world, about the $17,000 average cost (half directly borne by taxpayers) of treating each gun injury. But nationally, gun control is dead.

And he then provides a handy list of measures that Democrats should take regarding the gun issue:

"You can tell whether a camera is loaded by looking at it, and you should be able to tell whether a gun is loaded by looking at it," said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Professor Hemenway has written "Private Guns, Public Health," a brilliant and clear-eyed primer for the country.

We take safety steps that reduce the risks of everything from chain saws (so they don't kick back and cut off an arm) to refrigerators (so kids can't lock themselves inside). But firearms have been exempt. Companies make cellphones that survive if dropped, but some handguns can fire if they hit the ground.

Professor Hemenway notes that in the 1990's, two children a year, on average, died after locking themselves in car trunks. This was considered unacceptable, so a government agency studied the problem, and General Motors and Ford engineered safety mechanisms to prevent such deaths.

In contrast, 15 children under the age of 5 die annually in fatal gun accidents in the U.S., along with 18 children 5 to 9 years old. We routinely make aspirin bottles childproof, but not guns, even though childproof pistols were sold back in the 19th century - they wouldn't fire unless the shooter put pressure on the handle as well as the trigger.

Well now, while we all think any death is a tragedy, how much risk is acceptable for any product designed to improve or protect our life? Liberals will gladly accept 70 or more deaths a year from the use of the erection drug Viagra but suddenly balk at 33 accidental gun deaths of children? Trial-lawyers not withstanding, most folks accept the risk that a miniscule percentage of people will have an allergic reaction to a vaccine that will save the life of many millions of people. Apparently the urge for satisfying sex preempts safety but the urge to protect oneself or one's family does not.

Of course, the fact is that many firearms makers already have loaded-chamber indicators and a safety built into the back of the grip of the guns that they make. The hysterical Kristof doesn't mention this. He also doesn't consider that while a car should be made safe, a gun, by it's very nature is dangerous and is meant to be used immediately when it is suddenly needed to fend-off a mutant. I suppose we could require such safety devices but that adds a lot of cost to an item, a gun, that is most needed by folks who can least afford to pay for extras; the poor who live in crime-infested urban areas and probably need the protection provided by a firearm the most.

Let me repeat myself: No one wants to see a child die from an accidental handling of a gun but the benefits far outweigh the risks of such a device. Kristof claims there are 30 thousand deaths from firearms each year. Yes, there are, but most of them are from -- yes, accidents -- and more likely suicide, and by mutants being shot by police, or by other mutants.

Kristof offers more advice such as:

Finance research to develop "smart guns," which can be fired only by authorized users. If a cellphone can be locked with a PIN, why not a gun? This innovation would protect children - and thwart criminals.

That's a nice thought but it doesn't work and is silly. Why? Because if the "smart gun" can only be fired by one person, then everyone in the household must buy their own "smart gun" which simply increases the risks that Kristof warns about. I.E.: The Wife buys a gun for protection. She's away on a business trip and the spouse can't use the gun when drug-infested mutants break into his home. Or maybe both parents are away and the child can't protect himself.

Nicholas then summerizes:

Would these steps fly politically? Maybe. One poll showed that 88 percent of the public favors requiring that guns be childproof. And such measures demonstrate the kind of fresh thinking that can keep alive not only thousands of Americans, but the Democratic Party as well.

Kristof doesn't provide the name or link to that "one poll" but he is completely wrong if he thinks the Democrats will win with such gun-control measures. Democrats (liberal ones) will stand on their heads to support an unfettered First Amendment but will also do back-flips to abridge the Second. And because of that, they will probably lose a couple states and Senate and House seats every election. Hmmm... Maybe I should keep my mouth shut!

Turning to other issues, the Pioneer Press (MN) sensibly (and unusually) falls into support for local gun ranges. From an editorial:

Former city dwellers who have moved to the country have learned — GASP! — there's a shooting range down the road. Some have filed nuisance suits against the ranges, which, we'd point out, were there long before the encroaching neighbors. Range owners have been trying to get legislation through the Legislature in anticipation of more problems as formerly rural areas become increasingly more suburban.

Frankly, we're no more sympathetic to people who want to shut down gun ranges than we are to those who want to close smelly pig farms or slaughterhouses. Just because an existing business shatters someone's vision of country idyll doesn't mean it should be sent packing.

We thought DFL Rep. Rebecca Otto offered a good solution. She proposed that homebuyers moving near gun ranges sign a disclosure statement stating that they know who their neighbors are.

"It's a no-brainer," Otto said. "It's like moving next to a gravel pit."

We agree. Unfortunately, the real estate lobby managed to sideline this sensible proposal. A gun range protection bill made it through the House last session but never made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Fed up with the legislative process, range owners are hoping to reach some sort of compromise with municipalities. Les Bensch, owner of the Viking Valley Hunt Club in Ashby and one of the principal spokesmen for range owners, will host representatives from the Minnesota Association of Townships, the League of Minnesota Cities, and others later this month. Among the topics they'll discuss is a noise standard for ranges.

"If someone files a nuisance suit, that's hard to fight," Bensch said. "But a noise ordinance takes it out of the nuisance category and puts it into the control category."

Here again we have the city mice moving to the rural areas of our states and trying to control and squash the country mice. These are the same limo-liberals who move next to an airport and then exclaim, "Hey, keep it down!"

I'm glad that the Pioneer Press has come down on the side of sensibility. I regret that the local ranges have decided to go for a noise-ordnance rather than correctly fight for their rights. As I mentioned before, we have the rich folks moving into our neighborhoods and taking away our rights. They post their "estates" so no one can hunt or hike them. They grow impatient when waiting on line at the local mini-mart because the real residents engage in social, polite, civilized conversation about their families and local events. They ruin every area they move to. I'll keep it at that since I try not to launch into rants in this weekly post...

You know, in trying to determine whether a story is biased one way or another, good people can disagree. An article in yesterday's Washington Post covered the efforts of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. I saw it via the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page:

Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, always carries a gun because you never know when you'll need it. But which one to carry and how can be complicated, he said, much like the choice a woman faces in accessorizing her outfit with the right shoes. Today, he picked a compact black .40-caliber Kahr pistol, slipped it into a special holster and dropped it in his front pocket.

Arriving for lunch at a Topeka's Steakhouse 'n' Saloon not far from his suburban home, Van Cleave confronted another choice, an annoying one. Because the restaurant serves alcohol, Virginia law says he can't carry a concealed weapon inside. He would have to wear it in plain view. So he chose a different holster, one that fits inside his belt, leaving the gun exposed. Then he sighed.

"It's a pain to re-conceal it. Sometimes you may have to literally do a striptease," he said. "Isn't it asinine that I even have to worry about that?"

He walked into the restaurant. No one blinked. "Smoking or non?" the waiter asked.
[...]
The league has been scolded privately by national gun rights advocates for openly carrying en masse. Some league members showed up with weapons in full view at a September gun rights conference in Crystal City as the C-SPAN cameras started to roll. Conference organizers asked them to conceal or leave.

Joe Waldron, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, wrote in an e-mail that was later circulated on the Web that Van Cleave and league members threatened to turn the event into a "see the gun nuts wearing guns on their hips conference."

State Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach), a former police officer and a gun rights advocate, and other lawmakers have warned the group that their "in your face" open-carry tactics might serve only to galvanize the opposition. "They are turning a smoldering spark into a raging fire right now as the state becomes more urban and less rural," he said. "That's a battle that they may be likely to lose."

David F. Snyder, a Falls Church City Council member, is a case in point. When Van Cleave and league members carried weapons to a recent meeting to protest a gun control proposal, Snyder became more determined to fight them.

Several readers and bloggers also sent me a link to this story. One called it a "very pro-gun story" and another said, "...notice the sneering, barely contained contempt for gun owners throughout the piece." It's interesting that several pro-gun readers can view the same newspaper story in much different lights. I mention this only because I also receive criticism on occasion for my views on a particular article. My own opinion is that the writer, Brigid Schulte, did a decent job of reporting on the story and included pro and con quotes from (and in equal amounts) both and I might point out that the "anti" quotes came from pro-gun supporters and organizations. There was only one single mention by a gun-control group.

I can't ask for more than that from a newspaper story or it's writer. If you'd like to add your emotional or (better yet) financial support to them, the web site for the Virginia Citizens Defense League is here.

One last news story (hat-tip to Say Uncle) about shooting clays, and it's in the New York Times! Of course, it's in their business section... From the NY Times article:

It may come as a rude shock to fans of traditional country club sports, but more Americans take part in sports involving guns than play tennis and golf combined. The list, of course, includes hunting and recreational shooting, but also a blend called sporting clays, in which shooters plunge into nature not to stalk deer or ducks but to test their skill at hitting clay targets that fly through the air or bounce across the ground.

Sporting clays, a British import, has gained popularity in the United States in the last two decades, in part because it does not carry the social stigmas associated with wounding or killing wildlife. In fact, sporting clays is often described as golf with a shotgun because it poses the challenge of completing an outdoor course where terrain and weather conditions are important factors. But to sporting clays enthusiasts, the allure of their game is much more primal than that of golf because it still harks back to the ancient urge to hunt.

"The appeal of sporting clays is that it's the closest thing of all the mechanical, man-made practice exercises to real bird shooting," said James Gubelmann, 57, an architect in Morristown, N.J. "It not only helps you become a better shooter, it's fun."

According to organizations that track sports popularity, more than 40 million Americans participate at least once a year in hunting or recreational shooting. By comparison, 26 million people play golf and 9.6 million people play tennis at least once a year. Gary Mehalik, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said that 23 million people are target shooters and estimates that 9 million of them take part in sporting clays. More than 1,300 shooters competed in a sporting clays national championship tournament last month in San Antonio.

Of course, they title the article, "A Blood Sport Skips the Blood but Scales Up the Bang" as if they were covering Roman gladiators. None-the-less, it is to the credit of the BUSINESS SECTION editor (certainly not to the editorial or news editor) that such a story appears at all. You will be shocked to learn that they even mention several clubs where all NY Times interested readers (2, 3?) can sign-up to enjoy the sport.

Okay, this edition is WAY LATE and I'd better get it up. Thanks to all of you for stopping by!

End Of Week...

So, it's the end of the week. As I usually do, I try to take the weekend off. I'd also like to thank the couple of kind folks who hit the tip-thing this past few weeks. I really appreciate it. Anyway...

I'll be back on Monday with my "Weekly Report" and until then, I wish you all a terrific weekend and I hope all is or will get well for you and your families.

Thanks for stopping by! See you soon. Your emails, posted comments, and continued support make this all worthwhile. I thank you very much for all of that.

Shawnee Gun & Knife Show

That's this weekend and here's another type of story you'll NEVER see in the New York Times... From the News-Star (OK):

There's an old joke that an armed society is a polite society.

But the atmosphere at the Shawnee Gun and Knife Show is genuinely friendly, said Greg Hollis, head of the event. Entire families are much more common at today's shows, whether their interest is in hunting, target shooting or as collectors. And the Shawnee event is sure to have the gun or knife that meets their needs.

"A person would be amazed at the variety of guns and knives we have," Hollis said. "It's like having a lot of gun and knife shops under one roof."

The Shawnee Gun and Knife Show will be held at the Expo Center Saturday and Sunday. Hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Sunday. Admission is $6, but dollar-off coupons can be found in local convenience stores and in advertisements.

The article goes on in like style and points out how much fun it is and the wide variety of items, new and collectible to be found. There's even a photo of a dealer holding up an AK-47 with no disparaging commentary alongside it. Anyway, for those of you in the area, this sounds like a nice weekend outing (oh, heck, gun shows are always fun although "wallet-draining" events).

And kudos to the News-Star for covering it.

Another Self-Defensive Shooting

Anti-gun newspapers such as the New York Times will NEVER carry a story about the proper defensive use of a firearm but fortunately smaller, local ones will. From the Syracuse Post-Standard:

Brown, 51, who has owned the Western Lights Mobil Mart at Velasko Road and West Onondaga Street for about 30 years, told police he works the midnight-to-8 a.m. shift.

About 4 a.m. Wednesday, a man came to the door and buzzed to be let in. Brown unlocked the door and Elwood L. Powell came in, milled around "and just started acting suspicious," Connellan said.

Brown paid closer attention and suddenly, Powell tucked his head down, put his hand to his side as if pulling out a weapon and charged at Brown, Connellan said.

Police did not recover a weapon and do not believe Powell had one, Connellan said.

"He tried to bum-rush Mr. Brown," Connellan said. Brown reached behind the counter, pulled out a loaded 16-gauge automatic shotgun and pointed it at Powell, according to police reports.

Powell grabbedthe barrel of the rifle, trying to get Brown to drop it, but Brown fired one shot. The slug went through one of Powell's legs and lodged into the calf of the other leg, causing him to stumble.

That bought Brown enough time to dash into his office and lock the door, police said. As he was on the phone with 911 dispatchers, Brown watched the security camera monitor and saw Powell stand up, go behind the counter and try to get into the cash register, Connellan said.

When that didn't work, Powell grabbed packages of cigarettes and reeled out the door, police said. Near the gas pumps, he fell, and this time he didn't get back up, Connellan said.

Did you catch those last couple paragraphs? Even after being shot, this mutant still tried to grab cigarettes before making his unsuccessful escape. Now that's when you know you've got a really bad habit...

Powell was arrested in the parking lot. The store owner was not and will not be charged. As the investigating officer said:

"Mr. Brown felt threatened, thought someone had a weapon; that person was running at him," Connellan said. "He had every right to protect himself and his property."

Exactly!

Home Gun Rights Under Assault

So, from WeckUpToThees!... Read this.

The Ultimate Rock Song

Yeah, well, ten thousand bloggers have asked you what the best rock albums are. And all the answers are always wrong.

An alien space-craft just landed outside my house and the five-legged leader approached me and asked me to explain what this "rock and roll" is.

If I had to pick one single song that summed-up rock and roll, it would be the song I've just been blasting in my ears over and over for the past half-hour: ZZ Top's La Grange. Period. If your feet don't start dancing to that, your legs break.

Problems in Colorado

A court in Colorado has decided that "home rule" for the City of Denver trumps state legislation when it comes to gun-control laws. Most people who support "states' rights" might find this ruling comforting but I find this particular one rather problematic. Local zoning is fine when a town decides on commercial vs residential zones in the town plan. And it's fine when it concerns what the local citizens can do with their garbage or picking-up after your dog. But what about the issue of firearms? The law just overturned would have unified all gun laws in the state and prevented a local town or city from passing ordinances that overrule state law. This is unfortunate.

I first started covering this story (and the "unifying bill") almost two years ago with this post where I said:

The city of Denver and anti-gun groups all have their buns in an uproar but this is a good law. It means that if you are legally carrying a concealed firearm and you happen to drive through Denver and get pulled over, you can't be busted for it because Denver doesn't permit concealed carry.

It has nothing to do with "home rule" as many of the critics claim, and everything to do with common sense. It would be as if one city in a state demanded that tail-lights on cars had to be blue in color.

In all of the rest of Colorado, you (as with most of the country) have to have red tail-lights. Do you have to pull over on the side of a highway before entering Denver and change the lenses of your lights to blue?

It is fine to (well, not fine since I'm against most regulation but for the sake of this argument it is fine to...) enact local laws that only affect local residents. Once you start passing laws that contradict state laws, whether it is how far you must park from a stop-sign or how many tires your car must ride on, you create problems for anyone visiting or passing through your town.

This, in essence, is what Denver tried (and has now succeeded) to do with their local gun ordinances. Here's more background, also *ahem* from another post of mine:

Bill opponents planned to step up the pressure on Isgar before the expected vote today to try to convince him that the legislation still would have a strong negative impact on local control. Even with a concealed-weapons amendment, they said, cities and counties would be stripped of their authority to regulate open carry, assault weapons and other restrictions.

The bill is designed to wipe out dozens of local gun ordinances, allow people to travel with guns in their cars and do away with gun registries like the ones kept by Denver and Colorado Springs.

Denver has won some of their wishes with a sympathetic judge. Now for some true editorial bias... From yesterday's Denver Post:

A judge has ruled that state legislation can't supersede Denver's gun laws because the state constitution gives home rule cities supremacy in issues of local concern.

A new court ruling upholding most of Denver's gun ordinances is invaluable on two counts: It underscores the importance of home rule and it highlights the obvious - Denver is not the same as a small town, and when it comes to guns it shouldn't be treated like one.

Deputy City Attorney David Broadwell said it this way in his opening brief: "Simply put, a bullet fired in Denver - whether maliciously by a criminal or negligently by a law-abiding citizen - is more likely to hit something or somebody than a bullet fired in rural Colorado."

District Judge Joseph Meyer agreed, writing in his opinion, "Uniformity in itself is no virtue." His ruling came in a suit filed by the city of Denver challenging parts of two 2003 state laws, one of which threw out all local gun laws, including those that ban assault weapons. The other involved uniform standards for obtaining concealed-weapons permits.

In essence, Meyer said the state's desire to have uniform gun rules in all 64 counties was superseded by Denver's decision, as a home rule city, not to have them. Home rule authority was established in the state constitution in 1912 and made "home rule municipalities superior to the General Assembly with respect to local matters," he said. "Under the home rule amendment, a home rule municipality has the supreme power to legislate in matters of local concern," the judge said. Deciding whether or not state laws pre-empt Denver ordinances depends on whether they address matters of local, statewide or mixed local and statewide concern, he said.

Meyer upheld city ordinances that ban assault weapons, prohibit the open carrying of firearms and bar minors from access to firearms, ruling those were local concerns. "Denver suffers rates of violent crime far in excess of statewide averages," the judge said in his ruling.

We agree and applaud the decision. In the face of gun violence, it makes sense for a city to regulate the carrying of firearms, assault weapons and minors' access to guns.

Still up in the air legally is regulation of people who don't have concealed-weapons permits but who need to transport weapons in vehicles. Denver law says that such people are supposed to stow firearms safely and unloaded in the trunks of cars. The ruling wasn't fully clear on whether the city can require weapons be unloaded. Broadwell said he is still studying that issue.

I have not been to Colorado since I was about two-years-old but I presume that there are several state highways that pass through the City of Denver. Should the millions of folks who live in OTHER parts of Colorado now pull over into the break-down lane to unload their glove-compartment guns? Do they have to move them to the trunk of their cars? What about folks in a pickup truck?

This is the problem with local-rule when it contradicts state rules regarding state issues. If I lived somewhere OTHER than Denver, I'd start a letter-campaign writing to all businesses in Denver, letting them know that I will never drive to or enter Denver to shop in that city again. Hit the Chamber of Commerce where it hurts; the wallet.

After reading this news story and then re-reading the last paragraph that I wrote, I just KNEW my friend, Colorado resident, and blogger ally Publicola would have something to say about all of this. He doesn't disappoint:

I intend to avoid Denver whenever possible, but seeing as how all the east & southbound interstates run through it I can guarantee that I will violate Denver law again.

What I will not do is spend money inside the Denver city limits if I can possibly avoid it. Being the cheap bastard I am I'm pretty sure I can avoid it.

Read the whole rant, of course, because he is absolutely, 100% correct. Great minds think alike...

Now, I can't predict what will happen but I hope this decision (by a district court) will finally be decided by a state supreme, or a superior court. Needless to say, I hope that decision will be in favor of gun owners and state law...

Update 11/12:

The woman who should have been governor of VT, Pat Hejny, offers her own thoughts about guns and how they should be somewhat regulated. I don't agree with her but her arguments are well thought out. Head-on-over there and offer your own opinions. I'll simply say that driving a car is a "privilege" and owning a gun is a "right" and there is a huge difference...

Banning Knives in the UK

Australia did it (after banning guns) and their crime rate continues to rise. Following their lead, England -- having confiscated firearms and (surprise!) seeing a rising crime rate -- now wants to ban "assault blades" so that their subjects are completely defenseless. From the Evening Times (UK):

First Minister Jack McConnell has been in talks with chief constables on how to combat the rising level of knife crime, which is at its highest level for 10 years.

There will also be tougher sentencing powers for knife assaults, and a proposal to give police random stop and search powers is being considered.

The age at which young people can buy household knives and axes may also rise from 16 to 18.

A commitment to review the law and enforcement on knife crimes was part of the Executive's Partnership Agreement.

An Executive spokesperson said: "We are looking at existing legislation to determine whether it is sufficiently robust and flexible to respond to the illegal use and carriage of knives.

So the steak is "off". To bad these idiots didn't read about this story from Washington:

LYNNWOOD, Wash. -- A Snohomish County man used a machete to defend himself Sunday against three men with guns who tried to rob him at his trailer north of here, the sheriff's office said.

Neighbors armed with a baseball bat and a gun helped fight off the intruders around 7 a.m., sheriff's spokeswoman Jan Jorgensen said.

Shots were fired at one point, but no one was hit.

Sheriff's deputies nabbed two of the suspects who left the scene in a car. They had to be treated for wounds from the machete and the baseball bat, Jorgensen said.

In the future, the fine folks of England should just throw their hambergers and meatloafs at the attackers. Hopefully the mutants will be hungry enough to be deterred...

The Queen Mary Opens Up

Remember when I reported on Elton John's hissy-fit because some reporters DARED to snap his photo in a Taipei airport? He felt he should be allowed his privacy when not on stage and called those photographers "Rude, vile pigs!". Uh huh.

And in keeping with his privacy doctrine, as we speak he has opened up his apartment to the NBC Today Show TV cameras to show off. What a fucking hypocrite. But I guess this is how aging, has-been fairies behave. I can call him that because I'm gay and we're allowed to eat our own...

New Posts At Tarazet

Just a reminder that I actually have two web sites and the other one is dedicated to pet lovers, Tarazet, and there are plenty of posts there for dog and cat lovers. (And actually, also some posts for other feathered or furry or scaly friends.)

Tarazet is a family friendly blog, just links to news stories about our best friends. I hope you folks will start spreading the word about it. There's no politics, guns, angry-stuff, or anything else. Just nice articles.

Streisand Dons Tin-Foil Hat

Political analyst and blogger Barbra Streisand is also taking the election results rather hard. After finding instructions on how to stop alien abductions with a special "hat", she is prepared for what is to come, what with the witches and goblins and all...

She is calling for patience and quoting Thomas Jefferson:

In response to the results of the Presidential election last week, I would like to share with you a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Although written in 1798, I feel his words speak perfectly to the strong sentiments of frustration and disappointment 48% of the country feel.

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt......If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."

I believe she then broke into song with Send In the Clowns and then collapsed onto her divan saying, "Ben Affleck, come to me in my hour of need..."

Of course, with her Neu Yawk accent, a goose showed up honking about insurance...

Moore Off His Feed...

I've come to understand that filmmaker and Hollywood darling Michael Moore is feeling rather despondent these days over the results of the election.

He just seems to lie, er, I mean lay in his sty all day, occasionally putting out squeeks and grunts. Apparently, there are some pundits who think he might actually have helped re-elect Bush! Here's a quote:

Here, after all, was not simply a film director whose “Fahrenheit 9/11” emitted a vile propagandistic stink, indicating something contemptible in the mindset of its creator, but someone who went trotting about Europe telling the adulatory press that Americans “are possibly the dumbest people on the planet.”

While some Europeans may still be slapping their thighs at such cleverness, it should not be surprising that some Americans may have taken offense. They may have figured, for starters, that they have the mental edge over someone whose anti-Bush film neglected to distinguish facts from malicious fantasy, but there is a much bigger point.

It is that literally millions of the hard-working, responsible, decent citizens of this nation just may have had it up to their eyebrows with those Hollywood types and others who disdain their intelligence, mock their religion, dismiss their values, deprecate their lifestyles and disparage their social contributions.

These citizens may suppose their lives add up to at least as much as the lives of celebrities taking time from their divorce schedules to issue morally superior pronouncements about issues they don’t understand.

They may further suppose they have a better grasp of everyday political truths than the ultra-privileged who don’t have to deal with such problems as how to pay their monthly bills when unexpected expenses leap out of nowhere and grab their wallets...

Perhaps you kind folks could offer some advice to Moore here in the comments section of Alphecca -- the kinder, compassionate-conservative blog...

Oops! Mailbox Full...

I generally log onto my account at Hosting Matters only once a month to "see how I'm doing" and this morning discovered that my email accounts were full. While email is forwarded to my local ISP account, once the mail box at HM is filled, things start to bounce. I've cleaned it out. Sorry about that. If you've sent me an email in the past week it might not have gotten to me. Please try again.

Weekly Report...

I have no intention of simply blathering more about the just-past election. As a gun-rights enthusiast, I consider it a win for us because Kerry would have been much worse if he had been elected.

But this election was (mostly) about much more serious issues than simple gun control. I've just spent about two hours trying to dig up commentary on the effect of gun control issues on this past election and there just isn't much there, certainly not enough to put up a real "weekly" post.

I do believe that some small percentage of the electorate voted on gun issues but it drew nary an intelligent response from the chattering-class in the newspapers except for this excellent wrap-up by Dave Kopel at NRO.

I'm not going to put up a "weekly" post just to hear myself speak and to blather about nothing and waste your time so... I guess I'll give it another week.

Certainly the Democrats aren't considering gun-control much of a deciding factor this year (as they did in 2000, re: Gore's anti-gun stance) although most of us found Kerry's phony photo-ops rather ridiculous and unconvincing.

Needless to say, gun-rights are -- safe isn't the proper word -- at a standstill right now and probably won't be much of an issue in the near future although I'm sure the Di-Fi/Schumer/Kennedy coalition will make a few feeble attempts at bringing up the phony "assault weapons ban" again. I suspect they will find (given our gains in the House and Senate) an unwelcoming reception.

I had anticipated having a great "post election" story on how gun-control played a huge role in voting but it's obvious that it probably didn't. Certainly it was partially responsible for (since you could figure that a few thousand people WERE voting on the issue) Tom Daschle's loss. Maybe it was the cause of some other close wins and defeats but again, nobody is actually writing about it and my "weekly report" is about the bias of others. My own is clear to read here...

Let's see what develops besides a silly press release from the Brady Bunch calling for President Bush to "keep his vows" to enact "sensible gun control".

I'll be back Monday night with more blather. See you then!

One Last Thought...

By now, everyone is sick of hearing about the election. I'm tired of talking about it but I want to offer one last thought:

The left holds those of us who voted for President Bush in total contempt. They think we're idiots who don't know what's important. They think we don't know what really matters to ourselves or what's good for us.

I think we do. I think people are the best experts on themselves and what matters most in their lives and what issues and answers will better them or protect them the most. This election brought out record numbers of people on both sides of the divide. Three-and-a-half million more thought Bush's answers were better for them in their day-to-day existence and survival.

In my own case, I really don't care what Barbra Streisand or Dan Rather thinks should concern me most. They're not living my life. I know best what is best for me. And 59 million other people -- most of them pretty smart -- know what's best for them, too.

In this election the real experts have spoken and Bush will continue his work.

Steyn on the Election

Did you know that Mark Steyn lives just ten miles from me? I've really got to invite him out one night and buy him a few drinks just to be able to listen to his brilliant commentary in person. He's been one of the links on my sidebar for a very long time.

Anyway, (via Real Clear Politics) he has two great columns out today. First is his take on the sneering Europeans, from the UK Telegraph:

The big question after Tuesday was: will it just be more of the same in George W Bush's second term, or will there be a change of tone? And apparently it's the latter. The great European thinkers have decided that instead of doing another four years of lame Bush-is-a-moron cracks they're going to do four years of lame Americans-are-morons cracks. Inaugurating the new second-term outreach was Brian Reade in the Daily Mirror, who attributed the President's victory to: "The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport-ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong'."

Well, that's certainly why I supported Bush, but I'm not sure it entirely accounts for the other 59,459,765. Forty five per cent of Hispanics voted for the President, as did 25 per cent of Jews, and 23 per cent of gays. And this coalition of common-or-garden rednecks, Hispanic rednecks, sinister Zionist rednecks, and lesbian rednecks who enjoy hitting on their gay-loathin' sisters expanded its share of the vote across the entire country - not just in the Bush states but in the Kerry states, too.

In all but six states, the Republican vote went up: the urinating rednecks have increased their number not just in Texas and Mississippi but in Massachusetts and California, both of which have Republican governors. You can drive from coast to coast across the middle of the country and never pass through a single county that voted for John Kerry: it's one continuous cascade of self-righteous urine from sea to shining sea. States that were swing states in 2000 - West Virginia, Arkansas - are now solidly Republican, and once solidly Democrat states - Iowa, Wisconsin - are now swingers. The redneck states push hard up against the Canadian border, where if your neck's red it's frostbite. Bush's incontinent rednecks are everywhere: they're so numerous they're running out of sisters to bunk up with.

Needless to say, you MUST read the whole thing. Then, turning his scalpel to the coastal elites here in America, he eviscerates them as well. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

...More to the point, nobody who campaigns with Ben Affleck at his side has the right to call anybody an idiot. H. L. Mencken said that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Well, George Soros, Barbra Streisand and a lot of their friends just did: The Kerry campaign and its supporters -- MoveOn.org, Rock The Vote, etc. -- were awash in bazillions of dollars, and what have they got to show for it? In this election, the plebs were more mature than the elites: They understood that war is never cost-free and that you don't run away because of a couple of setbacks; they did not accept that one jailhouse scandal should determine America's national security interest; they rejected the childish caricature of their president and paranoid ravings about Halliburton; they declined to have their vote rocked by Bruce Springsteen or any other pop culture poser.

All the above is unworthy of a serious political party. As for this exit-poll data that everyone's all excited about, what does it mean when 22 percent of the electorate say their main concern was "moral issues"? Gay marriage? Abortion? Or is it something broader? For many of us, the war is also a moral issue, and the Democrats are on the wrong side of it, standing not with the women voting proudly in Afghanistan's first election but with the amoral and corrupt U.N., the amoral and cynical Jacques Chirac, the amoral and revolting head-hackers whom Democratic Convention guest of honor Michael Moore described as Iraq's ''minutemen.''

Make sure you read that whole column too. By the way, he mentions the sneering punk I mentioned a few posts back. Maybe I should buy him dinner, too.

End of the Week...

I'm happy with the result of the election but also worn-out. As I used to do, I will be taking the weekend off to recharge my batteries. I'll be back Monday morning with my "Weekly Report" and until then, I hope you all have a fabulous weekend. Thanks very much for stopping by!

Just Some Stuff...

Fellow Vermonter CoolBlue at (oddly enough!) the Cool Blue Blog put up a post before the election about Kerry and terrorism but even after the election it still serves as a good summery of why Kerry lost. I made many of the same points myself; that Kerry would be reactive when we really need someone who is proactive.

Persnickety at Ordinary Galoot is BUI; blogging while intoxicated. I actually do that quite a bit if it is an evening post like this. Anyway, here's another opinion about gay "marriage". And here's another.

MommaBear reminds us that Iran is looming on the horizon as a growing threat. I still think that the young "radicals" in Iran will cause the current "too-tightly-twisted-turban-crowd" [TM MommaBear] administration to implode.

And speaking of Iran, Demosophia reminds us that the war against the US started 25 years ago. Folks, we're in for a long battle. That is why I'm so glad that President Bush won the election. He has the focus and vision to continue to fight.

Mike Silverman at Red Letter Day speculates about what would happen under a true federalist nation regarding gays and gay marriage. Interesting. And I'm inclined to hope it happens since it would be interesting to see which states prosper as a result.

Ted at Rocket Jones is proposing an international leave a comment day. Us bloggers will thank you!

Sarpy Sam from Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere didn't vote for Bush, but he laments the comments about the aftermath of the election coming from some leftist blogs. A lot of us are...

Ian at Banana Oil! continues the theme of disgruntled leftists. Good post!

Saved By The Gun

Just another story of a clerk saving his own life by shooting a burgler, from the Clarion-Ledger (MS):

Criminal charges appear unlikely after a Jackson convenience store clerk shot and killed a man who was trying to rob the store Tuesday night, police said.

The fatal shooting marked the second time in the past week that a Jackson resident has killed someone trying to rob him, officials said.

Roosevelt Beale, 36, of Camilla Drive, was shot four times after a scuffle with Christian Corley, a 22-year-old store clerk, said Jackson Police Department spokesman Robert Graham.

Beale entered the BP service station, 2010 Raymond Road, about 9 p.m., displayed a knife and told Corley he was there to rob the business, Graham said.

"He tried to force the clerk to the back of the store, but a struggle ensued," Graham said.

Corley broke free and grabbed a gun behind the counter, Graham said.

"Another struggle ensued and they both wound up going out the front door," Graham said. "Beale reportedly still had a knife in his hand and lunged at Corley. Corley then shot him."

And that's how it's done. That needs to be the message that finally sinks into the thick skulls of the mutants of this world who rob and rape and try to kill us. We WILL defend ourselves, our businesses, our homes and families. And that is why in actuality, crime is lower in states that allow for personal defense, because the message is getting through.

They Just Don't Get It!

Warning: Another long, boring, rambling post...

Most Democrats are nice, thoughtful people who simply disagree with most Republicans about A FEW issues. And I'm sure that many Democratic strategists are reexamining the election results to see how they can bring their message, or shape it, more towards the moderate range of political discourse in order to attract more voters and win in 2006 and 2008. But the far left? ...Ahhh..., the far left will never grow up to act like adults and unfortunately, they are the ones who comprise much of MSM and Hollywood and the large urban areas of the country.

Via InstaPundit I was drawn to an excellent photo essay by Zombie Time of a post-election protest in San Francisco. You should really check-out his whole post and all the photos but here's one:

And that, in one picture of a sneering jerk, sums up the far-leftist wing that holds the Democratic Party captive and it is why they lost the election.

The areas where Kerry did well -- I call them the "near water" states -- are filled with people who are convinced that anyone (such as myself) who doesn't agree with what they say are stupid, homophobic, gun-nut, bible-thumping morons. No we're not. We're just hard-working folks trying to survive from day-to-day, raise our children to be decent, law-abiding citizens. We are far more tolerant of folks who disagree with us than the leftists are.

I live in Vermont but I am a mid-westerner at heart (I was born in Chicago) and frankly, I rather prefer those middle-American values. I'll tell you what I don't like: Having the coastal-elitists constantly shove their leftist-agenda down my throat via music, TV, and Hollywood, not to mention via leftist publications such as the New York Times.

Good people often disagree about various issues but it is the left that springs-up with violent protests, obscene web sites and calls for violence.

I happen to be "pro-life". Does that make me a bad person? Yet I cannot think of a single instance where Hollywood has portrayed a pro-life position or even just a person who is deeply religious with anything other than scorn and derision. Not one single sit-com, not one movie (except for a handful made by independent filmmakers) and not one touring play. Can you?

The young punk in the photo is telling the no longer silent majority that we don't matter and he could care less about our opinions on anything. As far as he is concerned, there will never be hope of compromise on any issue. That is why the Democrats lost the presidency and several senate and house seats.

There are also some on the far right who are guilty of a no-compromise position, too, but they don't control the media or stage violent protests (or rarely, anyway) and this post is about the Democrats trying to enlarge their tent because they are the ones who lost the election.

Several states have just passed bans on "gay marriage". A long time ago I had said that if the "gay lobby" as it were, were to take small steps -- start with simple equal rights, win over the hearts of their opponents by showing that they are just normal hardworking people, they would get them. Then another step towards "domestic partnerships" or civil-unions or what-have-you. They would get them: Two-thirds of Americans -- including many who oppose gay "marriage" -- support the legal rights (wills, visitations, taxes) of gays and lesbians. Exit polls suggest that they WOULD go for something "not called marriage". If they had followed that strategy, I'd be willing to bet good money that within twenty years they would actually have gay marriage in name.

But activists wanted it all at once and whenever you introduce such a sudden social change, especially via the courts, well, "every action causes an opposite and equal reaction". Or something like that. It doesn't help when hundreds of thousands of gays march in parades every June dressed in nothing but thongs, or S&M paraphernalia, or as giant condoms, and then wonder in amazement that "middle America" doesn't rush to embrace them. I get embarrassed over such antics and I'm gay.

Nor does it help when the left decides that all cultures are equal in deserving respect -- that the Taliban should have been allowed to continue because "that's just their culture" and we should value that. Sorry, but a culture of death is NOT equal to American or European culture. Frankly, I see few instances of Islamic "culture" fostering moderation, civilization, innovation, legal commerce, human rights, justice, the arts, eliminating suffering, or any other legitimate category we might use to measure a "culture".

The left also demands that everyone should have equal amounts of money, land, possessions, boats, cars, etc. That's a nice fantasy but in the real world, humans need that carrot as an inducement to create or invent or just to work hard. The redistribution of wealth is the cornerstone of socialists and it doesn't work. It's never worked. It never will work. And folks who live under socialism have no incentive to WORK.

A pharmaceutical company has no reason (or for that matter resources) to discover new medicines and cures for the diseases and conditions if they can't make money from it.

A software programmer isn't going to bother creating the next great computer operating system or game or program if he can't enjoy a profit from his labors.

Why should Donald Trump build a new resort or hotel (which will provide untold jobs for architects, contruction workers, casino workers, housemaids, etc., etc.) if he doesn't receive a "return" on his investment?

I might also point out that most -- not all -- funding for many charitable organizations and even PBS comes from the wealthy of this country. Under the left's idea of socialism, that would stop. So I don't mind seeing tax-breaks for the wealthy; I don't mind seeing tax-breaks for anyone.

The left says we shouldn't be fighting a war on "terror". They say we should just sit back, relax, it's all just a nuisance and besides, we brought it on ourselves. Let's just defend our shores and not actively try to root-out the mutants who took down the World Trade Center. It's interesting that on a more local level, they don't also say that Americans should just worry about their own safety and allow them then to own and carry guns for that purpose. But that's a discussion for another day.

The left, Left, "left", whatever you want to call them, just don't speak to me. I can't hear them for all their hysterical shouting. And the odd thing, as I've said before, is that there are some issues where I might agree with them, at least partially. But their more reasonable messages aren't getting through the rest of the "noise".

The Republicans, and especially George Bush, leave a lot to be desired. I've said that here before. But the punk in that photo above sums up what I think the left thinks and it is why I voted for Bush. For moderate folks like me, the Republicans didn't win the election so much as the Democrats lost it. That punk is the reason why.

Update: One reader emailed me and said:

John Kerry is not part of the "left" as you call them. Most of his positions were rather moderate compared to the extremist ones of Bush.

Actually, he said a lot more, and in much more colorful language but I cleaned it up here.

First, on some things Kerry is "moderate" but after 20 years in the Senate, he has a voting record that clearly shows he leans way to far left on most issues. But go back to my post last week where I lay out many (not all) of the reasons why I had decided on President Bush. I called it The Company You Keep and I pointed out that it isn't just the candidate but is also the people who support that candidate.

When the Swift Boat Veterans came out with their anti-Kerry book, all Democrats were crying for it to be suppressed and DEMANDING that Bush disavow the group. You will remember that Kerry and company had no problem though when Michael Moore released his movie of lies titled Fahrenheit 911. Indeed, they gave him a place of honor months later at their convention. And Kerry never tried to distance himself from all the foul-mouthed Hollywood celebrities at a fund-raising event in NY. Think Whoopy Goldberg. And he had no problem allowing himself to be alligned to someone that in my personal opinion is just plain crazy, Max Cleland. Once again, it really is the company you keep. Kerry chose badly.

One Last Thing...

I've goofed on this idiot for several years now. In my opinion, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe has cost the Democrats the elections of 2000, 2002, and now 2004. Why is this schmuck still employed?

Okay, One Quick Word...

Because I couldn't access my own blogs for a couple days, and also because I was glued to the TV and radio, I've not commented here on President Bush's re-election. Needless to say, I'm relieved that he was. I'm not too crazy about him but I think Kerry would have been a disaster. End of commentary. There are several hundred thousand blogs with far better commentary for you to read.

All I can really say is, "WHEW"! I've gotten about an hour of sleep over the past two days and I'm going to bed now, at an early hour. I'll be back soon...

More On Spam Comments...

You're all bored to death by this but when I was finally able to log into my blog a couple hours ago there were over 150 spam comments about rape, Elidel, and other stuff.

I notice that the spam-bots usually attack older posts so I just installed a MT plug-in that automatically closes comments that are not displayed on this main page -- meaning they are more than 14 days old. I can shrink that time-frame to any number of days I like. I'll see how it goes.

In any event, it means that while existing comments will be shown, you won't be able to post comments to anything older than two weeks. Sorry about that but this is a war I'm fighting with the mutants who insist on clogging-up the comments around here.

It seems to work very well and it was easy-as-pie to install so if you'd like the plug-in or you want me to install it on your blog, let me know...

Finally Got On...

I guess Hosting Matters has been really busy. This is the first time in almost two days I've been able to view my web sites and to log into MT.

Irma Has Election Overload

Leaving town hall after casting her ballot, Irma suddenly feels the effects of more than a year of campaigning, pundits, editorials, $600 million dollars in political TV advertising, endless commentaries, incessant polling, non-stop mudslinging distortions and continuous blather...

Enough Already...

I'm going to vote in an hour or so. Let me just climb-out on a rather sturdy limb and say that this is going to be a Very Close election with the winner maybe getting 49%-51% of the popular vote. Yet, tomorrow they and their spin-sters will somehow declare that this was a "clear mandate" for their candidate. *Sigh*

Me? I'm electioned-out. I just want it to be over already. I put up a "gun post" last night about sportsmen being skeptical of Kerry's hunting-photo-ops. I want to get back to that stuff -- gun stuff -- by this weekend. But then again, I never know what will get me riled-up.

No More HTML in Comments

Sorry about this but the auto-spam-bots are becoming such a problem that I've decided to "turn-off" allowing HTML (such as links) in comments. I'm hoping this will cut down on it a bit but a couple new spammers have learned how to by-pass the MT-Blacklist and still put up links.

If it doesn't make a difference then I will reinstate them. Or maybe I'll just go back to making everyone email comments to me that I put up at the end of the post. I'd rather not but... One commenter mentioned that he put in a block to the hyphen symbol, but I use a lot of hyphens myself and...

Does anyone actually "click through" these stupid spams?

Update 11/5: I turned "allow HTML" back on. The comments cut-off plug-in seems to be working very well...

Kerry Not So Convincing...

Here's an article from AFP:

Gun owners in the crucial midwestern swing state of Ohio expressed scepticism at attempts by Democratic presidential contender John Kerry to win their votes.

Kerry has gone hunting and made numerous reassuring comments in recent weeks aimed at the traditionally Republican gun-owning constituency.

Support of the gun lobby could be crucial for Kerry or his Republican rival, President George W. Bush, in Tuesday's vote. But many of Kerry's target are not impressed at his insistence that he supports the constitutional right to bear arms.

"One dead duck and a new hunting jacket doesn't make you a hunter," Doug Rigsby said derisively as he killed time outside a gun show in this southern Ohio town Saturday.

"His voting record is near 100 percent anti-gun. He's voted for just about every piece of gun control program that has come up."

It is a cynicism shared by many who browsed, traded or bought new pistols, rifles and automatic weapons at the gun and knife show at the Sharonville Convention Center.

More than just a knee-jerk reaction to a candidate from a party traditionally seen as hostile to gun ownership, the hunters and gun sports enthusiasts say it is Kerry's voting record that has turned them off.

Folks, I've given you my reasons for casting my ballot for Bush tomorrow. And for the past two years I've prattled about Kerry's dismal record on gun-rights. If you really need a reason to vote for Bush, consider this: A Kerry presidency would empower Kennedy, Di-Fi, Schumer, and all the other anti-2A gun grabbers.

I'm not a fan of GW Bush, but I'm voting for him because he isn't John Kerry. If you DON'T vote against Kerry, you have no license to bitch about any new gun-control laws that are passed during the next four years.

I'm already sick of this year-long campaign. Finally, mercifully, it ends tomorrow night (except for the 'effing lawyers who will, no doubt, drag it out in the courts for another month) and I can finally get back to media gun bias.

Anyway, I'll be quiet tomorrow. Just make sure you actually vote.