Because it's...you know...er, New Years. Now that I'm nearing AARP recruitment age, I'm going to try to take better care of myself.
(1) I will actually try to swallow vegetables that don't pour from a Hunt's bottle. I could probably choke-down V8 Juice now and then...
(2) I will try to stay under the legally inebriated limit when going out for a few...
(3) I will try to exercise more. For me, "more" is anything that exceeds flicking my Zippo cigarette lighter.
(4) I will try to rant less when stuck behind stupid, dumb-fuck lousy, idiot drivers...
(5) I will try to use less ellipses in my posts...
(6) I will try not to brag so much about my perfection...
Oh well, better luck next year.
I do hope the new year is a happy and healthy one for all of you. See you soon and thanks for stopping by.
Police disarm knife-wielding man with a 37 mm Super Sock launcher beanbag gun. From the Sun (IL):
Aurora police subdued a man armed with three knives early Dec. 23 by shooting him twice with beanbag munitions, marking the first use of so-called less-lethal projectiles by the Aurora Police Department.Rocky Dean Smith, 27, was struck in the torso by the beanbags, which an officer fired from 10 to 12 feet away inside the man's west-side home, police said. He was treated at an Aurora hospital and released to policeAurora hospital and released to police custody on multiple felony charges.
That's how the Brady Bunch refers to gun owners in their latest press-release! David Thibault at Crosswalk.com has the story:
Beware the lethal combination of alcohol, New Year's Eve revelry and a loaded gun, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which in its latest press release, pointed to the threat posed by "overexcited and under-intelligent" gun owners.Those people, the Brady Campaign warned, might "welcome 2005 with an act of stupidity," defined in the release as "the indiscriminate unloading of weapons into the air," or "celebratory gunfire." And "they may kill an innocent in the bargain, too," the anti-gun group stated.
However, even the gun control group, Americans for Gun Safety Foundation, found fault Wednesday with the Brady Campaign's use of the words "overexcited and under-intelligent" while referring to gun owners.
"I don't think that any gun owners are likely to be persuaded by a press release that effectively calls them stupid," said Casey Anderson, executive director of the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation.
"I certainly think that people ought to be careful how they handle and store their guns. But I doubt that a release of this type of tone is likely to persuade many people to take this advice seriously," Anderson added.Anderson said he suspects the Brady Campaign wasn't really aiming to "engage the audience of people who might do something irresponsible with their firearms. It's more aimed at people who are already convinced that guns are bad," he said.
Not all doctors march lock-step with the AMA anti-gun agenda. Say Uncle has the scoop.
I had started to write a rant about this story of Sri Lankra refusing Israel's help the other day but then killed it. Let's just say that Kim du Toit does it better then I would have.
Ken Summers has more plus a link to a story about the Vatican blaming Israel for not helping enough! By the way, that story was suddenly removed from the Catholic World News web site.
Israel is -- as usual -- criticized from all sides and they're damned when they do and damned when they don't.
You know, just because they allow same-sex marriage in Massachusetts (and notice that the state hasn't seen traditional marriage crumble yet) doesn't mean employers there have to now offer retirement benefits to them. Michael at Gay Orbit explains why.
The latest recount in Ohio, at the request of the Green and the Libertarian Parties, shows that President Bush still won, reports the AP. So, the Yahoo-AP headline reads, Ohio Recount Ends, Shows Vote Closer. I guess the $1.5 million dollars Ohio had to spend was worth it, right? Wrong! Here's a quote:
Election officials have finished the presidential recount in Ohio, with the final tally shaving about 300 votes off President Bush six-figure margin of victory in the state that gave him a second term.The recount shows Bush winning Ohio by 118,457 votes over John Kerry, according to unofficial results provided Tuesday to The Associated Press by the 88 counties. Lucas County, home to Toledo, was the last to finish counting.
The state had earlier declared Bush the winner by 118,775 votes and plans to adjust its totals to reflect the recount later this week.
The Kerry campaign supported the recount, but said it did not expect the tally to change the election winner. Supporters of the recount, requested by two minor party candidates, said they wanted to make sure every valid vote was counted.
I also didn't notice too much in the way of headlines or reporting about this from the major news networks.
So after all of that, is the election -- which George Bush won by over 3 million popular votes -- finally settled? Of course not:
But the completion of the recount will not bring an end to questions surrounding the vote in Ohio.A group of voters citing fraud have challenged the election results with the Ohio Supreme Court. The voters, supported by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, have cited irregularities including long lines, a shortage of voting machines in minority precincts and problems with computer equipment.
Attorney General Jim Petro has called the challenge frivolous and argued that the state Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over a federal election.
Cliff Arnebeck, an attorney representing the voters in the challenge, wasn't taking much stock in the recount effort. He questioned why there was no independent investigation into the accuracy of counting machines to determine whether the machines had been tampered with.
Democrats couldn't get past the 2000 election and it would appear that some of them refuse to get past this last one too. And they continue to wonder why middle-America tunes them out...
A NYC mutant gang member has been indicted under NY State laws as a terrorist. His family, and some members of the elitest left think that's too harsh. From Reuters:
"They are comparing my son to (Osama) bin Laden ... and all those people who used bombs and killed thousands of people at random," said [his mother, Lourdes] Morales."They are making him look as if he was this cold-hearted person, and he is not like that."
Morales, 22, was indicted on murder and other charges as acts of terror in May, along with 18 other members of the St. James Boys Gang, a Mexican and Mexican-American street gang.
Morales faces the most serious charge of second-degree murder as a terrorist act. A New York grand jury returned the charges against him in connection with the shooting death of 10-year-old Melanie Mendez, who died from gunshot wounds two years earlier.
[...]
New York's use of the statute to prosecute gang-related crime has sparked disagreement among lawmakers who voted for the legislation.A spokeswoman for state Sen. Michael Balboni, who sponsored the bill, said he does not mind that prosecutors have decided gang violence is a form of domestic terrorism and are using the statute to prosecute Morales.
"Gangs are a forum to promote terrorism," said Balboni spokeswoman Lisa Angerame. "Therefore, the anti-terrorism statue would be applicable against them, even if the original intent for this law was not exactly to prosecute them."
[...]
The anti-terror law passed overwhelmingly in the New York Senate 53-1.Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson, who brought the charges against Morales, said the terrorism stipulation was justified.
"The obvious need for this statue is to protect society against acts of political terror," Johnson said in a statement. "However, the terror perpetrated by gangs, which all too often occurs on the streets of New York, also fits squarely within the scope of this statute."
The 70-count indictment said the gang members conspired to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population."
It included a long list of crimes cited as evidence they terrorized a city neighborhood, including allegations they harassed and robbed customers of a local restaurant, fired guns into a crowded park, shot a teenager in the face and slashed someone's throat.
Some residents say the law is being abused.
"We cannot compare gang violence with big scale terrorist attacks," said resident Miriam Medina.
Local store manager Lidia Chavez added: "Gang violence and terrorism are two different things."
If using terrorism laws will put a piece of crap like Morales away FOREVER then I say go for it. Otherwise, he would only get 25-life and that isn't enough for cold-blooded, premeditated murder.
And maybe if his mother had raised him better, he wouldn't have gotten involved in gangs. Maybe. I don't want to blame parents for the defective brains of their kids.
If you really want to see some parents who SHOULD be blamed for their creepy children, watch "Wife Swap". Watch the elitest rich liberals who can't last one day actually having to take care of a family and do chores. They haven't a clue of what children need in parenting -- how could they? They spend almost NO time with them. I saw segments on Oprah the other day and I was just amazed at the rudeness and condescending attitude of the NYC creeps. Those are Democrats. They're the ones who think we-all are stupid morons, red-necks with no culture. And they wonder why we don't want them running our country...
I was just curious to know if any of you heard my gig today on the Cam Edwards' Show? Cam's show has been a terrific plus for me each week.
Actually, as I write this, the show is still on. And you can also listen to the audio from now until about 1:50 PM tomorrow as an archive. I thought I did rather well with my end-of-year report on media bias and such. Cam is great at guiding the conversation and keeping me focused. The producers, Aimee and John, have been so good at scheduling, feeding my (over-blown) ego, and contacting me where ever I might happen to be on any given Tuesday. Folks, I don't get paid for this but I wouldn't trade my (almost) weekly radio gig for anything in the world. I am so honored and flattered to be a part of Cam's show. Today was a "double segment" (twice my usual air-time) and I get so little feedback here... I was just hoping some of you heard it and agreed or disagreed with me.
I really look forward each week to this radio show opportunity and I'll be back on in two weeks' time. Next week, (for those of you who didn't read my Weekly Report) I'll be taking some time off. As for the show, it's a lot of fun and everyone there at the NRA NEWS has been terrific to me. Imagine, an old fogey gay gun-nut getting air-time to blather about media bias against our precious Second Amendment Rights! It doesn't get any better than that!
I missed this last week until Yahoo put it up on their gun control page. I had mentioned a couple weeks ago that even local California newspapers were rather "quiet" about the proposed handgun ban in San Francisco. Here's a skeptical quote from an op-ed by Joan Ryan from the SF Cronicle:
The same appears true in Chicago, which banned the sale and acquisition of handguns in 1982. No one has evaluated the data extensively, but Cook looked at the percentage of gun-related suicides before and after the ban. (The percentage of suicides with guns, he said, offers a reasonable proxy for the prevalence of gun ownership.) He found a slight decline in the first three years, then a steady rise. Also, the number of black males killed by guns in Cook County - of which Chicago is part - rose sharply between 1984 and 1998.Some research suggests that we are looking at a limited picture when we focus primarily on the availability of guns as the underlying cause of violence. The Department of Justice found that homicide rates are as likely to be tied to poverty and unemployment rates as to the prevalence of guns.
Studies also show that significantly enhancing the penalties for using guns in a crime is effective in reducing gun violence. In 1996 in Boston, for instance, the police informed gang members that the entire gang would be charged with a crime if any member was known to have used a gun illegally. Deadly gang violence dropped.
Still, Daly is confident that the gun ban will pass overwhelmingly in San Francisco.
It probably would. But Daly and the other supervisors are doing the city a disservice by putting it on the ballot at all. Most citizens don't have the time or manpower to research and evaluate public-policy ideas. Supervisors do. They are supposed to do the homework and craft measures that provide smart solutions to public problems.
Too bad they didn't look more closely at gun-control policies that, while not as flamboyant and righteous as a ban, have the advantage of practicality and demonstrated results.
I'm sure that the leftist loonies of San Francisco will approve this misguided measure. I'm also sure that it will have virtually no effect on gun-related crime in the city.
I do have new posts up at my pets blog. I just thought I'd mention that... Self-serving guy that I am...
Yeah yeah, so Glenn likes to chat-up digital cameras costing upwards of a grand or more. NOT US! Here at Alphecca we know real quality when we see it and we, er, seen it... Cumberland Farms is sorta the New England version of 7-11 and have they got a deal for you!
I drove back home and tried for a detail shot (I've trimmed it a bit) of Kimo's porch food, just to see what resolution the camera has:
My conclusions... Well, I'm not throwing away my Sony Mavica. But anyway: The camera has a USB port, sort-of. It's not a true USB device because your computer won't recognize it unless you install the Arc-Soft software. It's not a flash-disk memory, just sram. And sorry MAC users, it's only for PC Windows (yeah, I have an old one kicking around) and for about three times the price you could buy a digital with VGA resolution. Incidentally, if you leave it connected to your computer, you can (with the software) put it in continuous shoot mode for a low-budget web-cam.
So, for two saw-bucks you get a cute toy that fits in your pocket and (at the resolution I was shooting at) takes 19 pictures. Many more if you don't mind looking at those photos through an electron microscope. This is the sort of toy you can use to take those blurry pictures of flying-saucers and bigfoot to send in to George Noory and Art Bell.
Ah, the Christmas season, peace on Earth and goodwill to all, so let's talk about guns... Okay, call me cynical but guns are what mostly keep the peace. True, there are mutants out there who criminally misuse them but it also is true that the law-abiding folks of this nation who own guns or use them (as officers of the peace do) are the ones keeping those mutants in check.
With the year coming to an end, it's time to look back on the stories of the past year that defined guns, gun control, and the Second Amendment.
I think we can all agree that the "best news", if you want to call it that, was the demise of the ridiculous "assault weapons" ban. I base that on a post last week asking you what YOU thought was the big story. Under President Bill Clinton in 1994, nineteen rifles were defined as "scary looking" and therefore banned under federal law. President Bush had claimed that he supported an extension of the law and would sign it if it crossed his desk. It never did. And he certainly didn't expend any political capital to push for it.
So what happened? Last Spring, a bill came before Congress that would limit (not eliminate) liability lawsuits against gun makers. They would be held accountable if they sold or distributed their products in an unethical manner but would be exempt from frivolous lawsuits resulting from the criminal misuse of their firearms.
Sounds good to me and I hope a similar bill is introduced this coming year. The House passed the measure -- no problem -- but once it reached the Senate, (mostly Democratic) opponents began attaching amendments to it such as an extension of the "assault weapons" ban (AWB). In addition, they included a measure to close the "loophole" at gun shows where two people in a parking lot could transact without a background check.
Democrats won close votes to extend a ban on military-style assault weapons for another decade and to require background checks at gun shows. But their victories were short-lived. Republicans, angry that the gun-control measures were attached to a bill immunizing the gun industry from liability lawsuits, scuttled the package after hearing from the 4-million-member National Rifle Association.Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, sponsor of the immunity bill, blamed a ''growing element of presidential politics'' that he said will likely doom any gun legislation this year. The assault weapons ban already faces opposition from House Republican leaders.
So that was the first part of the story.
Then, the presidential campaign started heating up and here's where it got interesting. Besides owning the most liberal voting record in the Senate, Democratic candidate John Kerry also had a perfect (and I don't mean that in a good way) record of voting FOR every single gun control measure ever presented to him. He needed to redefine himself (some would say, "yet again") by declaring that he "believed in the Second Amendment" because he was a hunter himself. Never mind that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with bearing arms for defense of country and self.
Most Democrats (and Bill Clinton stated as much in his tiresome book) admitted that Al Gore's vocal gun-control stance cost him at least 5 states in the 2000 election. While Kerry did say he supported an extension of the "assault weapons" ban bill, he did it quietly and rarely before the cameras. Of course, we all knew he passionately supported it, he even said that if someone wanted to own an "assault rifle" they should enlist in the military. As he did. As he told us he did. Endlessly.
At the Democratic Convention, nary a word was heard during prime-time about gun control and "assault weapons". In fact, the issue was completely absent except for one lone speech during the "off-hours" by (D) - NY - Representative Carolyn McCarthy who blathered about it for a few minutes.
McCarthy on left with the Bradys...
As regressive milestones go, few are as frightful in this new era of homeland security as the decision by Congress and the Bush administration to allow the expiration of the 10-year-old law protecting the public from assault rifles and other rapid-fire battlefield weapons. The law - a far from perfect but demonstrably effective restraint on high-tech gunslingers - expires on Monday with not a whimper from the White House.When George Bush was a candidate four years ago and under campaign pressure from moderates, he announced that he did support the renewal of this highly popular law. It turned out that he was shooting rhetorical blanks; his support depended on the renewal's ever getting through Congress in the first place. As president, Mr. Bush has never once demanded that his G.O.P. leaders cease playing first responder to the demands of the gun lobby and take the initiative on this public safety issue.
Chalk up another one for the National Rifle Association. Because of the organization's enormous political influence, Congress and President Bush are poised to allow the 10-year-old federal assault-weapons ban to expire after midnight Monday. As a result, military-style firearms like semi- automatic AK-47s and Uzis will be legal again nationwide, unless banned by state or local laws.We should be deeply disturbed by this turn of events. Assault weapons are a class of semi-automatic firearms designed with military features, such as high-capacity ammunition magazines (some capable of holding 100 bullets) and pistol grips, to allow rapid and accurate spray firing. They are not designed for "sport"; they are designed to kill humans quickly and efficiently. Assault weapons have been used in many mass shootings...
I'm sure it did, but as I've said before, I don't think it cost them the election. In reality, the 2004 election hinged on homeland security and terrorism. I believe that this time 'round gun rights was a minor player in the stack of issues. But the Democrats didn't know that, and so to me the big story this past year was their fear of the "gun" issue. That, and a slim majority in Congress, led to the AWB being allowed to fade-off into the sunset...
Other good stories during the past year? Certainly I would posit that Ohio finally allowing concealed-carry was a plus. I would add that the court in Louisianna supporting (or at least dismissing the "funding" lawsuit) concealed-carry there was a good thing too.
Lastly, just last week, the Department of Justice released a report (actually they did it awhile back but it only became known last week) clearly stating that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right. I mentioned it in last week's report but aside from myself and some other pro-2A bloggers, you would otherwise have never known it since the press has been mostly silent about it.
Granted, this is John Ashcroft's DOJ and I suppose the outcome wasn't too much of a surprise but still, the silence from the media is deafening.
One more good news story: In Illinois, the superior court threw out two lawsuits against the gun industry. Pity the NY Times:
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.
"We point to the virtue of judicial restraint," they wrote. "Any change of this magnitude in the law affecting a highly regulated industry must be the work of the Legislature, brought about by the political process, not the work of the courts."The ruling was the latest setback in efforts by gun control advocates to use "public nuisance" laws as a way to force courts to tighten restrictions on the sale of firearms. Several cases brought by other cities have been dismissed by the courts, and 30 states have passed laws granting the industry immunity from suits. In Illinois, the justices said they could not accept a "novel application" of laws against public nuisances.
Now for the gloomier side of things: I'll keep it short...
What would be the worst news of the past year for pro-gunners? Certainly the ban by California against .50 caliber guns comes to mind. SF Gate tried to turn it into a terrorism issue:
Contra Costa County's move to ban the sale of .50-caliber rifles is the opening salvo of what could be a fierce battle pitting terrorism fighters against firearms owners.
The defeat of federal legislation to protect gun makers was another.
I suppose that the worst news, for the three or four people living in San Francisco who still believe in the Bill of Rights is that the town supervisors have submitted legislation that would ban private handgun ownership. This just happened and I reported on it extensively last week and won't repeat myself here except to gawk at such folks that think Chicago and Washington DC, which are number 1 and 2 in the nation in violent crime, are somehow models to be emulated by disarming law-abiding citizens.
There were plenty of other stories on both sides of the issue but I know that blog readers have short interest spans so I'll end this now. Next week I'll be taking an extended "New Years" holiday so this Weekly Report will return in two weeks. I really do appreciate your support and comments. Thanks for stopping by!
The thousands of deaths, the potential millions of homeless, a catastrophe such as the earthquake and resulting tsunamis is almost unimaginable as just happened.
Naturally I pray that things will rapidly improve, that foreign aid will rush in to help.
But I can't help thinking...
As usual, it is the big, bad, capitalistly (is that a word?) evil United States of America leading the charge in money, supplies, and relief. Europe will blather a while and send in token amounts.
Since many of the countries effected are Muslem, I was just wondering how much support the oil-rich middle-east Islamic countries are kicking in? How many do you think are rushing into Sri Lankra, et al, with food, clothing, medical staff? That's right, so far: NONE. The religion of peace...
I've also heard in news reports, and Matt Drudge talked about it last night on his radio show, how the self-righteous are exclaiming, "why didn't they have ocean sensors to detect tsunamis?" The fact that there hasn't been one in the Indian Ocean for over 125 years seems to escape them, and it is the same eco-disaster nonsense that the left blindly advocates.
I say this because I just finished Michael Crichton's State of Fear and it is excellent at rebutting the hysteria the left loves to try to scare all of us with regarding the environment and "global warming".
I enjoyed it much more than Prey (which read like a 1950's pulp magazine novela) and Crichton is on his game as (yes, the book itself is fiction but the facts he uses come from real sources) he demolishes the false claims and bogus science behind the whole theory that man has caused irreversable global warming.
Note that he isn't saying we should do nothing, just that man is not nearly all to blame for any perceived (and it is very slight) rise in temperatures IN SOME LOCATIONS. And most of that has nothing to do with CO2 increases, which are miniscule.
I bought the book as a gift but of course had to read it on the fly before mailing it out today... I recommend it highly. If I have one gripe, it's the cell-phones that attract lightning, but that is a small quibble in a sci-fi novel.
What with work and parties and family, I haven't been too active (actually, not at all) these past couple days. I really do, though, want to wish all of you Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas.
Shrunk down, here is one of my favorite Blizzard Games Wall Papers for StarCraft:
Posting will, what with visiting family and friends, be rather slim-to-none over the next few days. I'll be back Monday with a wrap-up of the year in guns and gun control.
I wish you, yours, your family, and your pets all of your dreams and desires. May God bless you.
This is interesting, a gun-grabbers vs mental-health and privacy advocates story! From the AP:
DALLAS - Near the end of her short life, Shayla Stewart, a diagnosed manic-depressive and schizophrenic, assaulted police officers and was arrested for attacking a fellow customer at a Denton Wal-Mart where she had a prescription for anti-psychotic medication.Given all those signs, her parents say, another Wal-Mart just seven miles away should have never sold her the shotgun she used to kill herself at age 24 in 2003.
Her mother, Lavern Bracy, is suing the world's biggest store chain for $25 million, saying clerks should have known about her daughter's illness or done more to find out.
The case, filed earlier this month, has reignited a debate over the confidentiality of mental health records and the effectiveness of background checks on would-be buyers of guns.
[...]
But pharmacy prescription records are confidential under a 1996 federal law, so stores cannot use them when deciding whether to sell a gun.Also, Wal-Mart did a background check on Stewart, as required under federal law, but through no fault of its own, her name did not show up in the FBI (news - web sites) database. The reason: The database contains no mental health records from Texas and 37 other states.
Texas does not submit mental health records because state law deems them confidential, said Paul Mascot, an attorney with the Texas Department of State Health Services. Other states have not computerized their record-keeping systems or do not store them in a central location for use by the FBI.
[...]
Michael Faenza, president and chief executive of the National Mental Health Association, applauds Texas' refusal to share information with the FBI database. He said it would not be fair to violate patients' privacy when there is no data to support claims that mentally ill people are more violent than others."The tragedies that families face when people are killed is terrible. And frankly I wish handguns were not so available in this country," he said. "But it's not right, in our minds, to make social policy based on just a few cases."
Next week I'll be doing a "double feature" on the show and I thought I'd ask for your opinions. What were the biggest stories, the best, the worst, etc., concerning firearms and the Second Amendment? For myself, probably the best news was the demise of the phony "assault weapons" ban but you might feel differently, such as more states allowing concealed carry. So cast your votes in the comments and I'll take that into consideration next week when I do my year-end summery for my report, both here and on the radio show.
First, it was 10 below zero this morning. Right now it's warmed up to a balmy 10 above. Why the hell am I living here?
Second, I've updated the Weekly Report to reflect that some of John Lott's data is in serious question as reported by Stuart Benjamin here.
Third, now that Aubrey Turner has shown me the light, you'll notice that I have a banner over the individual archive posts. It's one I used a million years ago during the early days of Alphecca. Cool.
Well, I better get off-line so I can answer the call and do my Cam Edwards gig.
Update 4:35 pm: Well, I don't know what happened... I only have the one line coming into my home (shared by the computer and the telephone) and so at about 2:08 I logged off after putting up this post. Normally the Cam Edwards Show calls about 2:17 or so. I had, as usual, my boss check my line and call me. All fine. The show has my home phone (and they also know I only have the one line) and... Nothing. No call...
Update 2: Well, it turns out Cam was off and the guest-host does her own thing and folks simply forgot to tell me. I'll be back on next week.
Several readers have emailed me today with the depressing news that garbage Democratic state senator Margolis has introduced a bill to ban high-cap magazines and so-called "assault weapons" in the state of Florida. Here's the bill:
Senate Bill sb0500
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.Florida Senate - 2005 SB 500
By Senator Margolis35-265-05
1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to weapons and firearms;
3 creating s. 790.222, F.S.; defining the terms
4 "assault weapon" and "large-capacity detachable
5 magazine"; prohibiting the manufacture,
6 importation, possession, purchase, sale, or
7 transfer of an assault weapon or large-capacity
8 detachable magazine; providing certain
9 specified exceptions; providing that a knowing
10 violation of the act is a felony of the second
11 degree; providing penalties; requiring the
12 seizure and forfeiture of assault weapons and
13 magazines held in violation of the act or used
14 in committing a crime; requiring that seized
15 weapons and magazines be destroyed within a
16 certain period; authorizing specified grace
17 periods during which a person may lawfully
18 transfer an assault weapon or magazine or take
19 certain other actions; granting immunity from
20 prosecution if a person notifies a law
21 enforcement agency that the person will
22 voluntarily surrender an assault weapon or
23 magazine; requiring licensed firearms dealers
24 to post a notice of the provisions of the act
25 and the criminal penalties imposed for a
26 violation of the act; providing an effective
27 date.
28
29 WHEREAS, the United States Congress passed, and the
30 President of the United States signed into law, the Federal
31
1
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.Florida Senate - 2005 SB 500
35-265-051 Assault Weapons Act on September 13, 1994, which prohibited
2 the use and possession of assault weapons, and
3 WHEREAS, this ban expired on September 13, 2004, as
4 Congress did not renew it, although President George W. Bush
5 agreed to sign the law if passed, and
6 WHEREAS, as a result of the expiration of the ban,
7 UZI's, AK-47's, and other semiautomatic weapons are now
8 available for purchase and possession in this state, and
9 WHEREAS, a Miami-Dade police officer was shot with a
10 semiautomatic assault weapon the day before the federal
11 assault weapon ban expired, and
12 WHEREAS, according to the United States Bureau of
13 Justice Statistics, in 2003 nine states regulated assault
14 weapons, 38 states regulated machine guns, and 40 states
15 regulated short-barreled shotguns, and
16 WHEREAS, according to the United States Bureau of
17 Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, assault weapons are preferred
18 by criminals rather than by law-abiding citizens eight to one,
19 NOW, THEREFORE,
20
21 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
22
23 Section 1. Section 790.222, Florida Statutes, is
24 created to read:
25 790.222 Assault weapons and magazines; restrictions on
26 transfer and possession.--
27 (1) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section, the term:
28 (a) "Assault weapon" has the same meaning as provided
29 in chapter 44 (commencing with s. 921) of Title 18 of the
30 United States Code Annotated.
31
2CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Florida Senate - 2005 SB 500
35-265-051 (b) "Large-capacity detachable magazine" or "magazine"
2 means any ammunition-feeding device the function of which is
3 to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing
4 chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use
5 of any tool, and which has the capacity to hold more than 10
6 rounds of ammunition.
7 (2) PROHIBITION.--Notwithstanding any other law to the
8 contrary, effective January 1, 2006, a person may not
9 manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell, or transfer any
10 assault weapon or large-capacity detachable magazine, except
11 as specifically authorized in subsection (3) or subsection
12 (6).
13 (3) EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION.--Subsection (2)
14 does not apply to:
15 (a) A person who is employed by a federal, state,
16 county, or municipal law enforcement agency or a correctional
17 agency for use in the performance of the person's lawful
18 duties;
19 (b) A person who is a member of the armed forces of
20 the United States, the organized reserves, or the Florida
21 National Guard while on official military duty, in authorized
22 training for official military duty, or subject to recall or
23 mobilization and under order to possess an assault weapon or
24 magazine;
25 (c) A firearms manufacturer or dealer that is properly
26 licensed under federal and state law to supply assault weapons
27 or magazines to any branch of the armed services of the United
28 States or to a law enforcement agency in this state; or
29 (d) A licensed firearms dealer who sells a lawfully
30 possessed assault weapon or magazine to a licensed firearms
31 dealer in another state.
3
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Florida Senate - 2005 SB 500
35-265-05
1 (4) PENALTIES.--A person who knowingly violates
2 subsection (2) commits a felony of the second degree,
3 punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.
4 775.084.
5 (5) SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS.--
6 (a) An officer who makes an arrest for a violation of
7 subsection (2) or for any offense involving the use or
8 attempted use of an assault weapon or magazine shall take
9 possession of the assault weapon or magazine and retain it
10 until after disposition of the charge for which the person was
11 arrested.
12 (b) If the person arrested is convicted or found
13 guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a violation of
14 subsection (2) or an offense involving the use or attempted
15 use of an assault weapon or magazine, the seized assault
16 weapon or magazine is forfeited to the state, with or without
17 an order of forfeiture, and must be handled as provided in
18 paragraph (e).
19 (c) If the person arrested is acquitted of the charge
20 of violating subsection (2) or an offense involving the use or
21 attempted use of an assault weapon or magazine, the seized
22 assault weapon or magazine:
23 1. Must be returned to the person upon order of the
24 court if the person demonstrates lawful ownership or
25 possession of the assault weapon or magazine in accordance
26 with state and federal law.
27 2. Is forfeited to the state, with or without an order
28 of forfeiture, and must be handled as provided in paragraph
29 (e), if the person fails to demonstrate to the court lawful
30 ownership or possession of the assault weapon or magazine in
314
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.Florida Senate - 2005 SB 500
35-265-051 accordance with state and federal law within 10 days after
2 acquittal or dismissal of the charges.
3 (d) If an assault weapon or magazine is in or comes
4 into the possession of a law enforcement agency through
5 capture, confiscation, surrender, abandonment, or rejection,
6 or is left and not reclaimed, the assault weapon or magazine
7 is forfeited to the state on January 31, 2006, or within 30
8 days after it comes into the law enforcement agency's
9 possession, whichever occurs later, with or without an order
10 of forfeiture, and must be handled as provided in paragraph
11 (e).
12 (e) An assault weapon or magazine that is forfeited to
13 the state must be destroyed within 60 days after the date it
14 is forfeited to the state.
15 (6) GRACE PERIODS.--The prohibition on the transfer
16 and possession of an assault weapon or magazine as provided in
17 this section takes effect January 1, 2006, except that:
18 (a) Any person who had lawful possession of an assault
19 weapon or magazine in this state before January 1, 2006, has
20 until July 1, 2006 to:
21 1. Lawfully transfer the assault weapon or magazine to
22 a person outside this state or to an agency that may lawfully
23 possess an assault weapon or magazine;
24 2. Have the assault weapon or magazine modified to
25 render it permanently inoperable; or
26 3. Take other action to ensure that continued
27 possession of the assault weapon or magazine is not in
28 violation of state or federal law.
29 (b) Any person who comes into lawful possession of a
30 lawfully held assault weapon or magazine on or after January
31
5
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Florida Senate - 2005 SB 500
35-265-051 1, 2006, has 60 days after the date of obtaining possession of
2 the assault weapon or magazine to:
3 1. Lawfully transfer the assault weapon or magazine to
4 a person outside this state or to an agency that may lawfully
5 possess an assault weapon or magazine;
6 2. Have the assault weapon or magazine modified to
7 render it permanently inoperable; or
8 3. Take other action to ensure that continued
9 possession of the assault weapon or magazine is not in
10 violation of state or federal law.
11
12 As used in this paragraph, the term "lawful possession of a
13 lawfully held assault weapon or magazine" includes an assault
14 weapon or magazine that is obtained through an estate, a gift,
15 a bequeathal, or an inheritance.
16 (7) IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION IF AN ASSAULT WEAPON IS
17 VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED.--
18 (a) A person who voluntarily surrenders an unlawfully
19 possessed assault weapon or magazine in accordance with this
20 subsection to a local or state law enforcement agency after
21 giving the agency written notice of the intention to surrender
22 the weapon or magazine and the date and time of the intended
23 surrender is immune from prosecution for unlawful possession
24 of the weapon or magazine.
25 (b) The notice must specify the type of assault weapon
26 or magazine to be surrendered and the time, place, and date of
27 the surrender. The date of surrender may not be more than 1
28 week after the date the notice is given.
29 (c) The assault weapon or magazine must be transported
30 and surrendered unloaded and secured in a manner so that it is
31 not readily accessible for use.
6
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Florida Senate - 2005 SB 500
35-265-051 (d) Upon the request of the person surrendering an
2 assault weapon or magazine, the law enforcement agency
3 receiving the weapon or magazine shall issue a receipt for the
4 weapon. In surrendering the weapon or magazine, the person
5 releases any claim of ownership in or title to the weapon or
6 magazine, agrees to the forfeiture of the weapon to the state,
7 and agrees for the weapon or magazine to be destroyed as
8 provided in paragraph (5)(e).
9 (e) This subsection does not grant immunity from
10 prosecution for any offense other than unlawful possession of
11 an assault weapon or magazine surrendered in the required
12 manner. If, after notice has been given but before the weapon
13 or magazine is surrendered, the person uses or attempts to use
14 the weapon or magazine in committing a crime, the immunity
15 from prosecution for unlawful possession does not apply.
16 (8) NOTICE TO BE POSTED.--A licensed firearms dealer
17 must conspicuously post at each purchase counter a warning in
18 block letters of not less than 1 inch in height which provides
19 adequate notice of the time periods and criminal penalties
20 contained in this section.
21 Section 2. This act shall take effect January 1, 2006.
2223 *****************************************
24 SENATE SUMMARY
25 Provides that it is a second-degree felony to
manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell, or transfer
26 an assault weapon or large-capacity detachable magazine.
Provides certain specified exceptions. Provides for the
27 seizure and forfeiture of assault weapons and magazines.
Requires that seized weapons and magazines be destroyed
28 within a certain time period. Authorizes specified grace
periods in which to transfer assault weapons and
29 magazines. Grants immunity from prosecution whenever a
person notifies a law enforcement agency that the person
30 will voluntarily surrender the assault weapon or
magazine. Requires licensed firearms dealers to post a
31 notice of the act and the criminal penalties imposed.
(See bill for details.)
The left keeps claiming that Bush and Ashcroft are curtailing our liberties but all I see is that same "left" stifling the First Amendment on college campuses and crushing the Second Amendment all over the country.
Update:Confederate Yankee fisks the bill's sponsor.
...Over at Posse Incitatus. His thoughts on self defense.
Welcome to the December 20th edition of my Weekly Check on the Bias against guns and the Second Amendment. Before I begin, I'd like to define a term I use around here a lot, namely "Mutants". Many of the best bloggers have their own names for the evil people who choose a criminal lifestyle and prey on law-abiding folks. For instance, Kim du Toit calls them Goblins and they surely are. I adopted the term mutant to signify that these creatures have defective, mutant brains that allow them to terrorize us. There is something wrong with their wiring if they are willing to rob, rape, assault, and murder normal folks.
When I first started Alphecca, I even used an analogy of mutants and home terrorism here and in other posts that week in November, 2002. I used the example of the movie Them!
You and I are under siege from mutants who want what we have but refuse to work for it. We are also under threat of mindless beings who think nothing of killing us for whatever random reason pops into their insane, mutant brains. They are waiting for us and it's not just in some dark alley on the "bad side of town" but rather right outside our doors.
Let's start with the original AP report:
City residents will vote next year on a proposed weapons ban that would deny handguns to everyone except law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards.If passed next November, residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses. The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal by a gun owners group.
The measure — submitted Tuesday to the Department of Elections by some city supervisors — would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses, according to Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly.
Firearms would be allowed only for police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment," according to the measure.
Barnes said Wednesday the initiative is a response to the rising homicide rate and other social ills, noting: "We think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."
The city's voters have frequently championed liberal causes. In the last election, a nonbinding ballot measure to condemn the war in Iraq and immediately pull out U.S. troops immediately passed with ease.
The normally liberal SF Chronicle was also skeptical as this article shows:
By allowing some people to have handguns and not others, opponents say, the law would create a new class of people. And any requirement of permission to own handguns amounts to a license -- which, according to state law, cities are not permitted to require.It was just this issue that torpedoed the last effort by San Francisco officials to ban handguns, in 1982, Barnes said. The drive was led by Dianne Feinstein, who became mayor after Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were shot to death in City Hall. This time around, Barnes said, the law was written to avoid any city participation in licensing or registration of guns, and he doesn't consider it to be creating a new class of people, as foes of the measure claim.
Supervisor-elect Ross Mirkarimi, who himself owns two handguns because of his job as an investigator in the district attorney's office, said he supported the ordinance."How many more Michael Moore films does it take to tell us that the Second Amendment is absolutely archaic, and other nations do it better than we do?" said Mirkarimi, who plans to donate or sell his own guns. "We should absolutely go forward with it despite the constitutional challenges."
However, he said, the legislation largely would be symbolic without enforcement.
The real falsehood of the measure is shown by the following:
"You have to keep guns away from kids," said Alioto-Pier, the mother of young children. "We're not taking away people's constitutional rights. This is about ensuring the safety of people who live here."
Now how's THIS for logic:
Supporters of a ban say it would curb gun violence in the city by reducing the number of weapons available. Bill Barnes, spokesman for the campaign, said many guns used in crimes were purchased legally -- and later stolen.
I'm not done reporting the good news! (Huh?) Yes, this report is usually dedicated to chronicling anti-gun bias but this time I think the fools in San Francisco underestimated the scorn their ballot measure would generate. As Jennifer Freeman of Liberty Belles editorializes in the Sierra Times:
San Francisco City Supervisors sent out a beacon this week alerting criminals all over the world that by January 2006 the people of San Francisco will, undoubetdly, have voluntarily disarmed themselves making the city an easy target for violent crime...
Barnes said the initiative is a response to San Francisco's skyrocketing homicide rate, as well as other social ills. There have been 86 murders in the city so far this year compared to 70 in all of 2003."The hope is twofold, that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it," he said. "Second, we know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."
The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal, however, by Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group. Sam Paredes, the group's executive director, said the state has for years had a "pre-emption law" on the books that bars local governments from usurping the state's authority to regulate firearms.
"The amazing thing is they are going to turn San Francisco into ground zero for every criminal who wants to profit at their chosen profession," Paredes said. "People are going to be assaulted, people are going to be robbed, people are going to be pushed around by thugs and the police are going to be powerless to do anything about it."
National Public Radio was a little more supportive of the measure. On All Things Considered on Saturday, they featured a report by KALW journalist Kristin Wiederholt (listen here) which starts out with statistics on rising homicide and firearm deaths in SF and then switches to the sounds of young women and children in the background as she interviews a girl from the "Center For Young Women's Developement" in the city. The story points out that blacks and latinos are hardist hit by crime ["World ends, women and minorities hardist hit"] and that the girl has been to 8 or 9 funerals during the past year. I was tempted to say that perhaps she was hanging with the wrong crowd but never mind.
Despite the obvious bias, at least Leff did include a lengthy quote by Sam Paredes (GOC) as well. But then it concludes with another woman stating that this ballot measure was "an early holiday gift". Being politically correct, she would never utter the word "Christmas"...
As I mentioned last week, the Las Vegas Review-Journal heaped on scorn for the measure:
The only major American city that prohibits private citizens from owning guns is Washington, D.C. -- and we all know our nation's capital has a reputation for being a pastoral, crime-free paradise.And now the deep thinkers in San Francisco hope to follow suit.
As I said last week, gun bans have NEVER WORKED. Period. Many bloggers besides myself have commented on this proposal including FreedomSight (also here) and Publicola as well as Hell in a Handbasket and Eric Scheie. Also Eugene Volokh. And plenty of others!
That was the sudden and big news of the past week. And at this point, I'll leave media bias and turn to the underpinnings of constitutional theory.
This bill from the supervisors of San Francisco would also violate the Second Amendment. Many have long argued that if all the other Bill of Rights clauses are singular-person specific, that is that they apply to the ordinary citizen rather than to some "collective state right" then so too must the right to bear arms. Glenn Reynolds has written extensively about it and his scholarship on the subject is evident here:
Thus, say Standard Model writers, the Second Amendment protects the same sort of individual right that other parts of the Bill of Rights provide. To hold otherwise, these writers argue, is to do violence to the Bill of Rights since, if one "right of the people" could be held not to apply to individuals, then so could others.[21] Furthermore, as William Van Alstyne notes, the "right" to which the Second Amendment refers is clearly the right "of the people, to keep and bear arms."[22] Thus, whatever the meaning of the (p.467)Amendment's reference to a "well-regulated militia," that reference does not modify the right recognized by the Amendment.[23]This textual argument is also supported by reference to history. Standard Model scholars muster substantial evidence that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to arms.[24] The first piece of evidence for this proposition is that such a right was protected by the English Bill of Rights of 1689.[25] As such, it became one of the "Rights of Englishmen" around which the American Revolutionaries initially rallied.[26] Standard Model scholars also stress that the right to keep and bear arms was seen as serving two purposes. First, it allowed individuals to defend themselves from outlaws of all kinds--not only ordinary criminals, but also soldiers and government officials who exceeded their authority, for in the legal and philosophical framework of the time no distinction was made between the two.[27] Just as importantly, the presence of an armed populace was seen as a check on government tyranny and on the power of a standing army. With the citizenry armed, imposing tyranny would be far more difficult than it would be with the citizenry defenseless.
The objection to including what some believed could be construed as a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms explains why, nine years later, the U.S. Senate rejected a proposal to add "for the common defense" at the end of what became the Second Amendment. However, the framers of the Massachusetts declaration never intended a narrow construction. In fact, it was drafted by John Adams, who had defended the rigtht to carry arms for self-defense and, in his study of American state constitutions, wrote that "arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense.
[...]
...No amount of history rewriting will ever convince the simplest citizen who can read that he is not one of "the people" whose right to keep and bear arms is secured by the Second Amendment.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.
Heading back now to the final story of the past week, the National Research Council released a report stating that much more, and better data was needed before drawing any conclusions about gun control laws and their effectiveness. They also stated that right-to-carry laws data is inconclusive as to whether it deters crime. Here's a quote:
Many Americans keep firearms to defend themselves against criminals, but research devoted to understanding the defensive and deterrent effects of guns has resulted in mixed and sometimes widely divergent findings, the report says. In addition, the accuracy of responses in gun-use surveys is a topic that has not been thoroughly investigated. The committee called for systematic research to define what is being measured in studies of defensive and deterrent effects of guns, to reduce reporting errors in national gun-use surveys, and to explore ways that different data sets may be linked to answer complex questions.Likewise, new research tools are needed to evaluate right-to-carry laws. Existing studies that use similar methods and data yield very dissimilar findings. Some studies indicate that the laws reduce violent crime. Other studies show negligible effects, while still others suggest that they increase violent crime. It is impossible to draw any strong conclusions about their effects from these studies, the report says.
That didn't stop Fox Butterfield -- unbiased reporter for the New York Times (yes, that's sarcasm...) -- from reporting:
The report was particularly skeptical of research claiming that homicide rates fall in states that pass laws permitting its citizens to carry concealed weapons. "The committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases violent crime," it said.
Thirty-four states now have such laws, some of them based on research by John R. Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Lott has written that allowing people to carry concealed weapons does reduce violent crime, but his findings have been disputed by many other researchers.
Take the new National Academy of Sciences panel set to study firearms research. The panel, meeting for the first time this week was started during the last days of the Clinton administration. Its report is scheduled to be released right before the 2004 elections.The project scope set out by the Clinton people was carefully planned to examine only the negative side of guns. Rather than compare how firearms facilitate both harm and self-defense, the panel was asked only to examine "firearm violence" or how "firearms may become embedded in [a] community." It is difficult to come up with a positive spin on terms like "embedded."
President Clinton could never bring himself to mention that guns can be used for self-defense, so it is not surprising that the project scope never mentions defensive use. But there are academic studies showing that people use guns defensively 2 million times a year. Failing to consider this makes it difficult to see how any panel could seriously "evaluate various prevention, intervention and control strategies." What if a new law disarms law-abiding citizens rather than criminals? Might that not increase crime?
Moreover, while not everyone on the committee has taken a public stand on firearms, roughly half the members are known for supporting gun control. One member, Benjamin R. Civiletti, attorney general in the Carter administration, has said, "The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy toward guns and crime." Another, Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, wrote that despite there not being any research showing that the Brady Act had reduced crime, opposition to the act rests on emotions that are "immune to scientific assessment."
Also, it is odd that the panel is accepting supplemental funding only from private foundations, such as the Joyce Foundation, that have exclusively supported gun control in the past.
So how well does this panel represent the academic spectrum on this issue? Pretty poorly. Two years ago, 294 academics from universities such as Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, the University of Chicago and Northwestern signed an open letter on gun control asking that Congress "before enacting yet more new laws ... investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed to the problems we currently face." These academics concluded that "new legislation is ill-advised." Yet not a single one of them was included on the National Academy of Sciences panel.
But it also questioned some favorite findings by advocates of gun control. It said, for example, that there was not enough evidence to conclude, as gun control advocates say, that owning a gun increases the risk of a gun injury.In addition, the report cast doubt on the effectiveness of some law enforcement programs to reduce gun violence that have been widely praised, like a Boston gun project in the 1990's that focused on juvenile gun possession, and Project Exile in Richmond, which gave stiffer federal sentences to criminals arrested in possession of a gun.
These programs seem to have reduced gun violence, but they were confined to a single city and there is not enough evidence that they could be replicated nationally, the report said.
"My sense is that people on both sides of the debate won't like the report," said Jens Ludwig, an associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University. "The main thrust of it is, we don't know anything about anything, and more research is needed."
The report was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, a branch of the Justice Department; the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Joyce Foundation; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
As blogger Say Uncle concludes:
...there is no correlation between gun laws and crime, which makes gun control rather pointless. Yet, as the anti-gun CDC has done in the past, they conclude they need more information. They need more information so that they can get the result that they want.
Update: Stuart Benjamin has a round-up of sources throwing some of John Lott's data into serious question. This would be a blow to all of us who have relied on it, if it is true. That, however, doesn't mean his reasons for questioning the objectivity of the NRC report are not valid but unfortunately, it casts a pall over everything he's written. The report still states that it can't reach any conclusion as to whether concealed-carry or gun ownership helps or hurts crime.
I guess I better get this post up now since it's almost noon. I'll be doing my weekly gig on the Cam Edwards Show which you can hear every day from 2-5 PM (ET) and I'm on at about 2:20 each Tuesday. The show is great so tune in or surf in. More info is on my right sidebar. Also, it's Christmas -- oops, can't say that either... -- and if you like what I do here, and this report does take some time to put together, please consider a small donation to help me keep going. See the "Hit Me To Tip Me" link on the sidebar.
Thanks for stopping by!
I am seriously considering quiting Movable Type and going back to my old hand-coded blog style. No comments or such (other than my adding ones emailed in to the end of each post) but then no comment spam either. Also, I could have more fun when I controlled each facet of the look.
Also, I've added a site meter a couple hours ago and have no idea how (other than manually doing it) adding it to all the archive posts which is how most people arrive here. My old way of doing things took care of that.
If I do this, it will be within a week... If you look any of the archives from 2003 you'll see how it used to look, and might again.
Your thoughts?
Update: Once again my blogbrother Aubrey Turner has come to my rescue and showed me what to do with the site meter stuff. So I guess things will continue as they are for now... Thanks very much, Aubrey!
I don't know how successful I'll be but I'll try to take the weekend off as usual. I hope you enjoy yours and until Monday, thanks for stopping by!
Presented for your disapproval... From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Supporters of a ban say it would curb gun violence in the city by reducing the number of weapons available. Bill Barnes, spokesman for the campaign, said many guns used in crimes were purchased legally -- and later stolen.According to a report by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, 213 people were victims of 176 incidents of handgun violence in 1999, the last year for which the data are available. Of all firearms used to cause injury or death that year, 67 percent were handguns.
Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, one of five supervisors who signed off on placing the proposed law on the next ballot, said it was concern about guns' falling into the wrong hands that motivated her.
"You have to keep guns away from kids," said Alioto-Pier, the mother of young children. "We're not taking away people's constitutional rights. This is about ensuring the safety of people who live here."
A lot of cars that were purchased legally somehow are stolen and driven by drunks and other mutants. Perhaps car ownership should be banned? Or, more reasonably, most states instead try to ban auto-theft and driving drunk. Jewelry is stolen a lot, perhaps we should try to prevent that by banning jewelry!
This proposed ballot measure is so astoundingly misguided and wrong that all I can think is the supervisors of San Francisco have totally lost their minds. If this movement starts to spread to other parts of California, and then to the "me-too's" like NY, MA, MD, NJ, et cetera, Democrats will never win another national election. Further, we will see the crime rate continue to skyrocket in these states as criminals feel like it's the first day of hunting season.
For those poor beleaguered Americans unfortunate enough to still be living in those areas, come to the light...Come to the red light of the red states. You'll find work and more importantly, you'll find like-minded folks such as yourselves who still believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Review Journal of Las Vegas has it right in this editorial:
The only major American city that prohibits private citizens from owning guns is Washington, D.C. -- and we all know our nation's capital has a reputation for being a pastoral, crime-free paradise.And now the deep thinkers in San Francisco hope to follow suit.
On Tuesday, The Associated Press reports, five of the city's 11 city supervisors submitted a measure to the Department of Elections that would prohibit the ownership, "sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses."
If voters approve the plan in November, residents would have 90 days to turn in their guns. Good luck.
There are some exceptions to the proposal. Law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment" would be free to keep their weapons.
Oh, yes, and so would one more favored class: violent and petty criminals.
Reader Scott has let me know he is selling his library of over 65 books relating to gun control and such on eBay, all as one collection. Here's the link so check it out. An impressive library could be yours with one click (and a few dollars)...
San Francisco is considering a ban on all handgun ownership for its subjects. Only law enforcement would be allowed to defend themselves. From the AP:
SAN FRANCISCO - City residents will vote next year on a proposed weapons ban that would deny handguns to everyone except law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards.If passed next November, residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses. The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal by a gun owners group.
The measure — submitted Tuesday to the Department of Elections by some city supervisors — would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses, according to Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly.
Firearms would be allowed only for police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment," according to the measure.
Barnes said Wednesday the initiative is a response to the rising homicide rate and other social ills, noting: "We think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."
It hasn't worked in Chicago, it hasn't worked in DC, it's a total failure in England and Australia. And showing what complete morons they are, the San Francisco tyrants think that somehow it will be different in their town? Lunacy is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
And given the liberal make-up of the city, the vote will probably pass.
California already HAS tough gun control regulations in place and that hasn't worked.
And if this ban is enacted, is it even constitutional? Unfortunately, the hyper-activist Ninth Circuit Court will probably rule that it is.
Criminals in San Francisco must already be activating their grass-roots "get out the vote" machine cranked-up! *Sigh*
Update: Some other bloggers have been covering this story too, including FreedomSight (also here) and Publicola as well as Hell in a Handbasket and Eric Scheie. Also Eugene Volokh. And plenty of others!
My friends The Pryhills are hosting this weeks Carnival of the Vanities so head on over for some good stuff.
One of these days I have to start submitting posts to this weekly event...
Well, hot on the heals of my claiming that only anti-gun groups receive coverage of their "press releases", the Washington Times publishes one from the NRA on the plan to revive the bill limiting lawsuits against firearms makers... Here's a quote:
The Republican gain of four Senate seats and several new conservative House members breathes new life into legislation supported by gun rights advocates to protect the firearms industry.The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF), in a report detailing their 2004 electoral gains at all levels, showed stronger support for a bill to protect gun makers and dealers from lawsuits stemming from the criminal actions of a third party.
"These types of lawsuits are an abuse of the American legal system and unless Congress steps in we will lose," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.
Solomonia offers his thoughts on the presumed next president of the Palistinians and what he should, or needs to do for peace to come to the region.
Well, actually a couple days ago, December 12th: DC Thornton turns 36. Young whipper-snapper! Go wish him a Happy Birthday. Sorry I'm a couple days late, I thought his birthday was next year...
Rachel Lucas is back, but with a new name, Blue-Eyed Infidel, and that's a good thing. I never dropped her from my blogroll because I sorta' figured she would be back. But now I actually have to go in and change the URL. I'm still going to list her under her name because, well, because she'll always be Rachel to me and I love her. You will too if you aren't already familiar with her from her previous incarnation. She could also use some financial help so hit her tip-jar.
Speaking of which, nobody has hit mine in about seven weeks. I'm not feeling the love...
First England took away law-abiding citizens' guns. Now there's a campaign underway to take away their knives... From the Telegraph:
Families of stabbing victims are set to launch a campaign today calling on the Government to make carrying a knife as serious a crime as carrying a gun.The group, which includes Damilola Taylor's father, will demand that ministers introduce a five-year minimum jail term for carrying an object with a blade longer than three inches.
They also want to see a six-month minimum jail term for carrying a blade shorter than three inches, or three months for juveniles.
See, people who support the nanny-state will not rest until they totally disarm people and protect them from every possible harm.
If they were really interested in protecting people, they'd lock criminals up for life. It always boils down to criminal control, not gun or knife control. *Sigh*
The latest (January '05) issue of the Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction has a full page ad from The Haworth Positronic Press featuring gay and lesbian SF and Horror books. Nothing wrong with that, I just found the copy for these two books rather funny, especially the first one featuring a reviewer's quote:
If you are going to read only one gay romantic historical medical fantasy novel this year, THIS SHOULD BE IT.
I hold a lot of opinions that don't endear me to too many people; I'm gay, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-God, anti-big government, anti-PC (no, not the computer...), and I reject most liberal doctrine.
But I think there is one thing that I and every single person reading this post can all agree on and it is that the couple described in the following story must be just about the nicest, most generous and kind folks who exist... From the AP:
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - The walls and tabletops in Roger and Imogene Gorsuch's home are lined with photos of their extra children — all 233 of them.After 45 years as foster parents, taking in mostly infants and toddlers of many nationalities and skin colors, the 86-year-old couple finally decided to call it quits.
"It's all been good," said Roger Gorsuch, a retired printer.
Of course he would say that, his wife of 67 years jokes. "He was gone most of the time."
The state Children's Services Department does not know if taking in 233 children is a state record, but they are sure the Chattanooga couple have been a blessing for those in need.
"We had been married 20 years, and life was good," Imogene Gorsuch wrote in a diary, describing the decision to start taking in children in the late 1950s. The pair also raised three sons and a daughter of their own.
"Blessed with a comfortable home, adequate income and everything we needed, we had a desire to share this with others less fortunate," Imogene Gorsuch wrote.
Sometimes there were six foster children at a time. Some arrived at their modest home with broken bones and bruises from beatings. Some stayed only a few months; one girl stayed 15 years.
"Whether sick or well, it didn't matter," Imogene Gorsuch wrote. "They were 'ours' already — 13 different cultures, seven sets of twins, physically or developmentally delayed, abused crack babies, profoundly retarded, tiny preemies, or with severe medical problems, all needing tender, loving care."
It just takes my breath away at how good people can be. Mostly, the evening news and our newspapers report on how bad people can be but once in a while a story like this sneaks in and gives me hope for all of mankind. While I might hope that the Gorsuches win the lottery tomorrow, I suspect they already consider themselves rich beyond their dreams. And they are. God bless them.
Reason Magazine's Cathy Young has an op-ed in today's Boston Globe:
IN THE current debate over gay rights, conservatives have often protested the tendency to brand all opposition to same-sex marriage as homophobic or hateful. I agree that such labels are unfair, just as its unfair to brand anyone who opposes abortion or supports a traditional division of male and female roles in marriage a misogynist. Gender arrangements, traditional and modern, are a complex issue on which intelligent, honest, and nonbigoted people can disagree.But there's also a lot of outright, unmistakable hate and bigotry out there, and it must be recognized and confronted.
Take, for instance, Gerald Allen, a Republican representative in the Alabama Legislature. Buoyed by the election results and by the success of the referendums against same-sex marriage, Allen has recently submitted a bill to prohibit the use of public funds to purchase textbooks or library materials that "recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle."
At a press conference, Allen made it clear that his proposal targets much more than pro-gay rights political literature: literary works with gay characters and themes would have to be banished from library shelves as well. (It's a vast blacklist that would include the play "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" by Tennessee Williams, the novels of Iris Murdoch, the poems of Sappho and Walt Whitman, and Plato's "Symposium.") As he put it, "I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them." If this guy didn't exist, a left-wing journalist would have to invent him as a walking stereotype of a "red-state" bigot.
[...]
Both political parties have their unsavory extremists. The 2004 Democratic convention featured Michael Moore as a guest of honor and racial agitator Al Sharpton as a prime-time speaker. John Kerry has been criticized, and rightly so, for not taking the opportunity to distance himself -- and the Democratic Party mainstream -- from that crowd. President Bush has tried to convey an image of moderation and tolerance by speaking in support of civil unions on national television a few days before the election, and voicing disagreement with the Republican platform plank that would deny not only marriage but all legal protections to same-sex couples (a position supported by only 37 percent of voters in the CNN exit poll). But he has not explicitly repudiated the bigotry and gay-baiting in his party's ranks.
[...]
In the meantime, Gerald Allen's book-burning -- excuse me, book-burying -- proposal seems like a perfect occasion for Laura Bush, a former librarian and the head of a foundation to help America's libraries, to speak out against intolerance. Such a statement by the first lady would undoubtedly upset some people in the president's base. But one wants to hope that those people do not have veto power in the Republican Party.
The attempt to legalize same-sex marriage through judicial fiat and civil disobedience was, it is increasingly clear, a bad idea. However, if conservatives want to show that it's possible to be against same-sex marriage but also against intolerance and discrimination, they're not doing a very good job so far.
Now, while I do -- not particularly enthusiastically -- support gay marriage, I have also made it clear that it should be done by winning over popular support, not through the courts. I think that by taking small steps, perhaps just working on legal rights, then civil unions, the general public would find that we are just like anyone else. Eventually marriage rights (I'm not really sure WHY anyone who is gay would actually want them for other than the legal issues, anyway) would evolve into being.
It's interesting that I might not be alone in my ideas. Also from today's Globe:
Some gay activists favor scaling back their ambitions to push for civil unions, which confer some of the benefits and protections of marriage on gay couples. Others argue that civil unions are inadequate, that they do not guarantee hundreds of the rights marriage could, and that they set gays and lesbians apart from society in a ''separate and unequal" institution.''I don't think the American public is ready to embrace marriage," said Abner Mason, executive director of AIDS Responsibility and a member of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. ''There was a certain euphoria built around marriage [in Massachusetts] and for some people there is a reluctance to accept that, from a political perspective there's a lot of work to do."
That marriage is too ambitious a goal has ''always been a point raised, and by people who are with us, as well as by people who oppose us," said Sue Hyde, New England field director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. ''I think the election results have kind of reinvigorated people to say it again."
HRC officials began outlining a more pragmatic strategy for the group at a meeting last weekend in Las Vegas. They decided to inject themselves into debates over Social Security, pension, and tax policy to try to win incremental rights in addition to sweeping ones. They floated the possibility of supporting the Bush administration plan to privatize Social Security, for example, in the hopes of winning survivor benefits from more open-minded private companies that might administer the funds.
More broadly, HRC strategists are hoping to reintroduce gays and lesbians to the American people, an attempt to replace what a spokesman called sensational television images of gay and lesbian couples -- footage of them kissing after they were married in San Francisco earlier this year, for example -- with fuller stories. The group will focus on approaching people personally, through churches and local communities, and appealing to voters' sense of fairness by focusing on the rights denied to gays and lesbians, he said.
African-Americans, Blacks, may have (did) win important legal equality in the Voting Rights Act and in Brown vs Board of Education, but it took years to actually feel those rights from a significant percentage of the white population. I'm not saying that's right, just the way it is. You might be legally equal, but until others view you as equal, you're not.
To use what might be a lame analogy, just because you want to be in the Olympics doesn't mean you can be. You have to train and work at it everyday and convince others that you're worthy of participating. Once you've proven yourself to others, they will embrace you and put you at the same starting line as everyone else.
I am well accepted in my small community and it isn't because I demanded that they do so. I did it by leading my life, not thrusting my lifestyle in anyone's face, taking part in the town affairs, and just plain showing that I was one of them. I wrote about it here.
Sometimes you can cover more ground with less commotion by taking small steps rather than giant leaps.
[Note: I rarely write about gay issues here and when I do, I refer to them as my "once a month 'gay post'". This was it...]
I warned you months ago that this would happen. Never mind the idiots of the Libertarian Party spending valuable funds to force an Ohio recount of the ballots, now we have (at first stealthly, but now right out in the open) the left and the Democrats and (I ignore daddy, er, I mean Father Jesse Jackson who is irrelevant to anything today) Kerry's lawyers demanding a visual inspection of ballots, but only in the counties that a group hand-selected by them will choose. From My Way News:
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Democrat John Kerry is asking county elections officials to allow his witnesses to inspect the 92,000 ballots cast in Ohio in which no vote for president was recorded, a Kerry lawyer said Sunday night.The request is one of 11 the Kerry campaign made in a letter sent over the weekend to Ohio's 88 county boards of election, which will begin recounting presidential ballots this week.
"We're trying to increase the transparency of the election process," said Donald McTigue, the lawyer handling the recount for the Kerry campaign. But he added that several requests - such as using independent experts to check election equipment, "are trying to push the edge of envelope."
Welcome to the December 13th edition of my (nearly) weekly check on the bias in media against guns and the Second Amendment. I'd like to start off by issueing a...
End of Press Release.
There. I'm glad I could straighten this whole thing out. Now, what do you think the chances are that the main-stream media will publicize or quote my press release? Slim-to-none?
In fact, when you scan the web for any "positive" instances of firearm ownership you pretty much draw a blank from most of the national newspapers and TV networks. Only the small ones are willing to report on stories that reflect well on the use of guns for defensive (or any other) reasons.
Now, a "press release" is simply a statement by (usually) a partisan organization touting their views on a subject. Why is it, then, that MSM (Main Stream Media) is always willing to quote or publicize negative commentary on firearms but not on (from our standpoint) "good news"?
We've all heard by now of the Ohio nightclub shootings where a mutant shot dead four people including former Pantera guitarist Darrell Abbott. This is, as with any murder, a tragedy but it is also a crime, not a gun-control issue.
You'll be shocked, shocked to learn that under "financial news", Yahoo News gladly gave "air-space" to a press-release from The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence seeking to capitalize on this horrible incident:
The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence released the following statement following the tragic shooting at a nightclub in Columbus, Ohio, where 25-year-old Nathan Gale walked on stage and shot and killed 4 people, including heavy metal guitarist Darrell Abbott, before police shot and killed Gale.
[...]
"Although there are many questions still unanswered as the investigation continues, one thing is clear, that this tragic shooting only emphasizes the desperate need for a comprehensive nationwide, public health approach to prevent and reduce gun violence. Until we accomplish that goal, gun violence will continue."
Accidental shootings with firearms are down significantly over the past several years reports The National Shooting Sports Foundation:
A report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities continue to decline and are at the lowest level in the history of record keeping. Statistics in the council’s “Injury Facts 2004” reveal a 54 percent decrease over a 10-year period ending in 2003.Last year, 101,537 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types. Less than one percent, 700, involved firearms. The most common deadly accidents involved motor vehicles, falls and poisonings, claiming 72 percent of all accidental deaths.
nada
Hmmm... I would think that was pretty good news yet Yahoo decided not to cover it. In fact, no one did! And it's not as if the National Safety Council is trying to hide the information. In fact, I found this handy chart rather illuminating. Accidental "firearm discharge" deaths total 802 for the chart year 2001. Look, all such incidents are unfortunate but let's look at some other statistics they (and they are hardly a gun-friendly group) report on.
Accidental deaths by:
Drowning and submersion while in or falling into swimming-pool: 596
Fall involving bed, chair, other furniture: 734
I want you to think about that a minute, folks, that almost as many people died falling out of their Laz-E-Boy or off of their Serta Perfect Sleeper as did people (including children) from accidental firearm discharges.
You might find this boring but now I'm rather interested...
Falling down stairs: 1462
Car occupant: 14946 (that's just as a rider, not the driver!)
Exposure to forces of nature: 1100
Air and space transport accidents: 918
Alright, I could go on but you get the point. Accidental gun deaths are way down and no one in the media wants to report on it. I call that bias.
Now for some real bias by MSNBC as reported by my friend Kevin at The Smallest Minority:
I was alerted via a post in rec.guns that MSNBC has done it again. Residents of Lampasas, Texas are holding a raffle to pay for new fencing around a school, and in fine Texan tradition, the prize is two rifles. One is a Kimber model 84 in 7mm-08, and the other is Marlin model 25N Ducks Unlimited collector edition.MSNBC ran an appropriately shocked and tsk-tsking story on the raffle, and interviewed Texas Congresswoman Susanna Hupp. Here's the transcript as I heard it. Unfortunately, I was unable to do a screen capture of the... Well, you'll see.
What the network reporter did was to pose loaded questions to the unsuspecting Texas State Representative while showing "scare pictures" in the background. One of those questions from the clearly biased reporter:
And, and that's definitely... I know the community overwhelmingly supports what you say, but I can hear parents right now watching their TV monitors thinking "Hey, this is ludicrous," you want to put deer rifles in the hands of these kids. You're not only sending them the wrong message, but you're basically inviting trouble. What would you say to those moms and dads?
This is ambush journalism of the worst kind. It is the type of garbage-technique made famous by Michael Moore in Bowling For Columbine wherein he claimed you could just open an account at a bank and would "walk-out" with a rifle.
More thoughts come to mind: As Congresswoman Hupp pointed out in the report, the winner of the rifles would still have to go through all proper transfer regulations including the Instant Check, as well as meeting applicable Texas firearm laws.
Second, why would the reporter, Lisa Daniels, assume that a "child" would win the raffle? It was aimed at getting local residents to buy tickets and support the improvement to the security of the school. Children rarely buy raffle tickets, adults do.
Just more dishonesty by Daniels. So let's look at one of these guns because I happen to own a Marlin 25N. Here it is, being modeled by the lovely Samantha this morning:
Lastly, MSM (Main Stream Media) has lately taken to bashing bloggers, claiming they aren't real journalists. CBS comes to mind. But as Kevin and others clearly show, it is the blogosphere that is doing the "fact-checking" and pointing out the total dishonesty of the supposed guardians of the free-press in this country.
In other news, the settlement between Bushmaster, the Bull's Eye Gun Shop, and victims of the DC Sniper shootings was finally approved by a judge. From the AP:
SEATTLE - A judge has signed off on a $2.5 million settlement between relatives of Washington, D.C.-area sniper victims and a gun shop and weapon maker connected to the shootings.In the settlement reached in September, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma agreed to pay $2 million to two survivors and six families related to the victims of snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. Gun manufacturer Bushmaster Firearms of Windham, Maine, agreed to pay the remaining $500,000.
Unfortunately and contrary to what the trial lawyers would have municipalities believe (as an inducement to file suits), companies such as Bushmaster don't have deep pockets. In this case it was better to settle. They actually got off easy as these types of suits go. I don't think they did anything wrong AT ALL but alas, we live in a litigious world, either for profit or to force legislation.As for the Bull's Eye sporting shop, I can't feel too sorry for them because they've had numerous past instances of "lost" inventory. Something was going on there and the BATF seemed to ignore it.
Obviously the real blame should have been put on the two mutants who committed these horrible crimes. Life in prison for them seems not nearly severe enough for me.
It marked the first time a gun manufacturer has agreed to pay damages to settle claims of negligent distribution of weapons, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which helped the families file the lawsuit.Judge Frank E. Cuthbertson approved the settlement Dec. 5 in Tacoma, though his order was filed under seal, the court said Friday.
Sonia Wills, the mother of victim Conrad Johnson, said $2.5 million "is nothing."
"They know they're worth more than that," she said Friday. "This money will never bring my son back. It will never bring back any of the loved ones that were taken."
My last story today concerns, not bias by a newspaper but rather by a University against a professor who supports the Second Amendment. From Crosswalk.Com:
The issues of gun control and free speech dominate a lawsuit filed by an Oklahoma University geology professor who used a blunt sexual comparison to criticize a pro-gun control newspaper column and later was demoted for that and other perceived transgressions.The letter that geology professor David Deming wrote to the editor of the Oklahoma Daily newspaper in February 2000 argued that the owner of an unregistered gun was no more likely to become a murderer than a woman who had not registered her sex organ was to becoming a prostitute.
The letter prompted 25 charges of sexual harassment against Deming, filed "by people I had never met," he stated in a subsequent column. And while those charges were eventually dropped, Deming believes the letter remained a sore spot for university officials, contributing to their decision to oust him from the Oklahoma University (OU) School of Geology and Geophysics, strip Deming of most of his classes and relocate his office to a basement lab.
But I would think that just because Demings is pro-gun and speaks (or writes) his mind on the subject should not be cause to demote him and to try to oust him. The article, which quotes the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), is certainly fair. Here's a quote from the original report from FIRE:
Professor Deming’s troubles began in February 2000, when OU threatened to punish him for a letter he wrote to the Oklahoma Daily newspaper protesting a column advocating gun control. Read more about this case here. After FIRE wrote in protest and Deming threatened a First Amendment lawsuit, the university dropped the charges in May 2000. Soon thereafter, Roger Slatt, Director of the School of Geology and Geophysics, began to unconstitutionally monitor Deming’s letters to the newspaper and include them in three professional evaluations, until directed to stop by OU President David L. Boren. In June 2003, Boren wrote to Deming, saying, “I fully agree with you that your political views should not be included as a factor in your post-tenure review.”
[...]
Documents obtained through a public records request paint a disturbing story of administrative scheming to eliminate Deming. Click here to read these original documents in PDF format. In a July 24, 2003, e-mail to William Clopine, chair of the Geology Alumni Advisory Council, Dean John Snow of the College of Geosciences wrote, “it is doubly frustrating that President Boren ... has shown such sympathy for Deming.... Somehow I have to convince Roger [Slatt] that he needs to basically ignore and then marginalize Deming.… As long as we keep our i’s dotted and our t’s crossed, all Deming can really do is make noise and cause a bit more paperwork.” He went on, “I firmly believe Deming will finally annoy the President with his whining – it may take a while but it will happen and I want to be here to watch.” He suggested that Clopine have supportive alumni call Slatt with their support, telling him that Slatt should know that “all [Deming] really is a bump on the road [sic].”
Here's what some other bloggers are up to:
Damnum Absque Injuria has a controversial post giving his thoughts on what constitutes "reasonable gun control". Plenty of comments and while I'll refrain from my own here, I will point out that registration almost ALWAYS leads to confiscation. History shows that.
Say Uncle offers his thoughts on the above, and also commentary on the Chicago gun shop protests.
Geek With A .45 covers the bias of TIME Magazine against guns using their...covers! Bias in pictures!
Bitter Bitch writes that she will never give up the fight for gun rights in anti-gun states. And folks, she does indeed practice what she preaches.
I better get this thing posted. You can hear me live tomorrow on Cam Edwards' Show and in the meantime, thanks for stopping by.
I'm taking tomorrow off. I'll be back Monday with my "Weekly Report" if I can find enough stuff to blather about. In the meantime, have a great weekend and thanks for stopping by...
I guess this is another one from the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" department. It's the tale of a stupid, tragic but fortunately not fatal shooting of a high school student by a woman whose firearm concealed in her purse went off accidentally... From the Clarion-Ledger (MS):
Tishawunna Funchess said she regrets what she calls a freak accident that wounded a 14-year-old boy after a gun accidentally discharged in her purse outside his school in Jackson earlier this week.If anything, Funchess, a 28-year-old mother of three from Jackson, said she wanted Christopher Hudson's mother, Montrica Meeks, to know how sorry she is about the accidental shooting. Funchess called Meeks after the Tuesday shooting to explain what happened.
"I feel really bad," she told The Clarion-Ledger in a telephone interview. "It was a big freak accident."
Funchess said she has personal reasons for no longer wanting to carry a weapon.
"My mother died from an accidental shooting," she said, not elaborating. "That's why it will take me awhile to get over it. I didn't try to run. You have to take responsibility for what you do."
Folks, I will step-aside for nobody when it comes to self-defense and the right to bear arms, but I also will not forget or neglect the fact that doing so requires real responsibility for using that firearm in a proper manner. Guns don't just go bang on their own.
I have to give the Clarion-Ledger writer credit for just sticking to the facts. A lot of liberal-type newspapers would have made an issue against concealed-carry out of this story.
No, not on guns but on mutants trying to bring planes down. James at Hell In a Handbasket has the disturbing details which naturally include the political fallout.
The tireless Ken Summers at It Comes In Pints? correctly comments on a story I was going to but, well, I was too enraged to speak coherently about... It's the one about the parent arrested (and will probably be sued) for listening in on her daughter's phone conversation with her mutant boyfriend who happens to be a criminal. She reported his admitted crime to the police and SHE did the time instead!
My buddy Josh at JawsBlog reports on how one smart town council in Ohio is encouraging folks to go hunting in their backyards to reduce the huge deer (over) population. And it all gets donated to feed the hungry! Great story, Josh.
It all started last night when I was listening to Coast-to-Coast AM and they were discussing the fact that someone was selling a slice of haunted toast on eBay. Remember also the grilled-cheese sandwich?
I'm a regular kind of guy who laughs stuff like that off. What nonsense, I thought. Boy, was I wrong...
This morning I thought I'd enjoy a nice piece of toast myself (it must have been the subliminal suggestion from the show) but suddenly my toaster started making eerie noises:
Dave Kopel has an article up at MSNBC about the real meaning of Hanukkah:
Tonight is the fourth night of Armed Jews Week, or as it is more popularly known, Hanukkah. Hanukkah is an eight-day celebration of the Jewish revolution against Syria in the second century B.C. The Syrian government (a remnant of Alexander the Great’s empire) attempted to wipe out the Jewish religion by forcing the Jews to conform to Greek culture. Some of them refused, and a tiny militia, led by Judah the Maccabee (“the hammer”) began a guerilla war.
Confederate Yankee suggests using this opportunity to buy a Limited Edition Bren from the JPFO with proceeds going to an excellent cause.
There's an article today in the Olympian (WA) about guns in the workplace that while presenting both for-and-against arguments, provides very good reasons to allow it. Here's one:
Having a gun is what Terry Pickle believes saved his life. In 2001, the owner of Pickle's Pawn Shop in Salt Lake City, was at work when two intruders broke in. They didn't ask questions or demand money. They simply walked in and opened fire.But Pickle and his son, David, grabbed the loaded guns they carry and fired back, injuring one. The intruders fled, firing at a customer as they left. Pickle said he now knows firsthand that guns on the job can deter crime and keep employees safe. The two men were later caught and sentenced to prison, with one serving 10 years and the other serving 71/2 years.
Anyway, this is a continuing debate between our side and some big businesses that find themselves in states that now allow concealed-carry.
One of the incidents relates to employees simply having firearms in the trunks of their cars in a parking lot because they plan to go to the range after work. They were caught on camera, fired, sued, and lost. *Sigh*
Attention all school personnel --
In an effort to insure a proper, nurturing environment for all our students, the following rules will be implemented immediately:
1) No mention of Christmas or Hanukkah will be permitted. Children who are not celebrating these holidays at home might be made to feel uncomfortable or even offended or left-out and we can't have that!
In addition, from now on, Christmas Day will simply be referred to as "that Federal Holiday" or "Holiday". Furthermore, since some children might feel depressed during the "Holiday", please refrain from wishing any of them a "Happy" Holiday as this would make them feel even sadder or more uncomfortable. From now on, just tell them to "have a holiday".
2) History Teachers will hereafter not mention any religion or the fact that the founders of America were or held any feelings of religiosity as this could be offensive to students who are athiests, or at least make them feel uncomfortable. Documents such as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution will not be taught as they mention "God" and blur the seperation of church and state.
3) All teachers will no longer grade childrens' assignments as this could cause low self-esteem. All tests, homework, classroom essays will be returned to the student marked, "Fabulous!".
4) As many children often have favorite numbers and we don't want them to feel ashamed of this, all math teachers will now instruct their pupils that all numbers are equal in value. From now on,
1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = 7 = 8 = 9 and etc. Mathematical problems on exams will allow as correct such answers as 2 + 2 = (any number the student writes in). Again, there are no wrong answers to problems as this could make the student feel uncomfortable or lower their self-esteem. Just mark all tests as "Fabulous!".
5) Lunchroom personnel will no longer serve meat or fish products in the cafeteria as some children are vegetarians and could elsewise suffer offense at seeing their classmates consume such items. Furthermore, since some pupils might have crooked teeth, all food served will henceforth be pureed and served with straws so that the child can simply suck his/her lunch without exposing their teeth.
6) Not all students have good handwriting and this could cause them to have low self-esteem if it is pointed out to them. From now on, student papers no longer have to be legible or even written using the letters from the alphabet. Assignments and tests written or answered using symbols or pictures will now be acceptable. Just mark them "Fabulous!".
7) Since some pupils are not good at athletics, all gym classes will now consist of a large ball placed in the middle of the field or gymnasium. Each pupil will then slowly walk (so as not to harm themselves) over and touch the ball with any part of their body. As each student does this, he will be declared "a winner" by the teacher and all the other students will shout, "Fabulous!".
8) Music students will no longer be required to read sheet music or to play in tune or even the same song as other students. Any noises issuing from their instruments will be considered beautiful and "Fabulous!"
9) In keeping with that theme, many children have difficulty expressing themselves in a classroom setting. Not all of them speak English or any other known language or in complete sentences. In the future, pupils may answer questions or oral exams with simple grunts and other sounds. This will be considered "Fabulous!".
10) As many children consider themselves to be the center of the universe and informing them elsewise could lower their self-esteem or offend them, science teachers will no longer teach astronomy.
In conclusion, I believe that by adopting these steps, as well as others soon to come, we can create an environment where our students feel wholeness and happiness throughout the day. Faculty members are invited to suggest their own improvements to our curriculum.
...There's just not enough of anything to report on or comment about. It's disappointing that the "safe neighborhoods" program was de-funded but in hunting around for bias, well, not much to yak about. Posting will be light for the next couple days. See you soon.
As usual, I try to take the weekends off to relax (actually I still have to work my real day job...) and I will be back Monday morning sometime with my Weekly Check on the Bias.
I really do appreciate you all taking the time to stop by my blog here. I wish I was a brilliant journalist or commentator but instead I'm just a gay gun-nut who loves America and our Bill of Rights and likes to blather endlessly about it.
I hope you'll visit again and until then, thanks for stopping by! Have a great weekend.
When you have gout, like I do, you have to be carefull about what you eat. If I go too heavy on meats I suffer. I don't take my Allopurinol regularly because I don't like taking any drugs regularly.
I've been a bad boy the past few days, having a 1/2 lb burger last night, then today having meatloaf and chili-dogs. I knew I was on the edge when I had slight twinges in my right knee this afternoon. So for the next few days I will just eat boring, stupid stuff like potatoes and pasta. I came So Close to pain but I fell onto the better edge of it this time thanks to my trooper-body.
Eric Scheie starts with Dowd, moves on to O'Reilly, and examines why we might prefer "Pretty Daddy Figures" delivering our news. Hmmm... There's also discussion of the fact that bloggers are in fact held to many of the same standards as MSM.
Local Knoxville reporter Molly Kincaid of Metro Pulse Online decides to hang with the shooting crowd and see what this gun stuff is all about...
She visits a gun shop where there are... guns. Here are some quotes:
The various guns I shoot at the gun range are not, by the government’s standards, classified as “assault weapons.” Still, Guy tells me that they have essentially the same amount of power, and they certainly feel capable of assault.President Bill Clinton’s 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in September, placed a ban on 19 guns classified as “assault weapons.” Historically, restrictions on firearms are by no means limited to liberal politicians; both the Reagan and Bush (the elder) administrations oversaw the implementation of limits on importation of certain foreign weapons.
The lingering question about the 1994 ban is, “What, if anything, did it accomplish?” Gun enthusiasts say its effects were petty, aside from simply being a morale-boosting coup for the anti-gun lobby.
People on both sides of the debate are so biased that it’s nearly impossible to pick through the jumble of truths, rationalizations, opinions and flat-out fabrications.
The most significant difference in the gun market since the ban expired is the increased capacity space of the magazine (the cartridge which holds the bullets). Before the ban, no magazine could be sold or manufactured (for long guns or handguns) that held more than 10 rounds. Though most shooters at the range still use 10-round magazines, there is now a variety available. The highest I saw was a 90-round coil for an AR15 on sale at a recent RK Gun Show, which would make it possible to shoot 90 bullets rapidly without reloading.
Then she visits a gun show:
While the hunters and competition shooters at the rifle range seem to be model gun owners—law-abiding and objective in their consideration toward the anti-gun lobby—a few folks at the RK Gun Show were less levelheaded. Gun shows give retailers, collectors and gun buyers a forum to talk shop, display their prized possessions, and make transactions. The show, held at the Knoxville Expo Center a few weeks ago, gave me a peek at another side of the gun world. While a few people I spoke with told me brusquely to go away after learning that I was a reporter, the ones who would chat with me kept their guard up.To say that I stood out at the gun show would be an understatement; I was one of only a few females, and the only one who didn’t have a thumb hooked in a boyfriend’s back jeans pocket. The woman at the ticket booth asked kindly if I wasn’t mistaking the gun show for the craft show around the corner.
If firearms attract a brand of fanaticism, gun shows are surely where it lurks. Camo-clad attendees perused with intensity the endless rows of tables lined with every variety of handgun, long gun, knife, magazine, and accessory imaginable. The awing capability for destruction in the massive warehouse would bewilder most, but it seemed to be the norm for the members of this intimidating microculture.
She's a reporter and most gun enthusiasts (such as myself) would rightly view her with suspician. After all, it is the average (but not all) reporter who has been thrusting their liberal bias against guns into everything they write about gun owners and firearm legislation that makes all of us wary. I would imagine that if I was an NRO reporter visiting a Democratic gathering, I would be treated the same way, with the same suspicion. As for how folks are dressed, well, I see clumps of high school kids dressed as she described everyday and they aren't even into guns.
Unfortunately, Kincaid finds plenty of quotes from people that should know better and SHOULD have not trusted her:
One booth at the gun show features instructional CDs with titles such as “Silencer Cookbook” and “Full Auto Conversion.” The young man at the counter says of the latter, which describes how to convert a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic, “It’s kind of illegal, but it’s not illegal to know how to do it. It’s a good CD. I sell a lot of those.”For the record, it is legal to purchase machine guns (or full automatics) since the ban expired, but it requires a six- to nine-month background check by the FBI and a permit issued by the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). Danny Guy contemplates the subject of machine guns for a moment before saying, “It’s just what floats your boat—what thrills you. Because there’s absolutely no purpose for them...no reason any citizen would need one.”
As for the quote about machine guns and "no reason any citizen would need one", well, maybe I just WANT one and since the Second Amendment says I can have one, well, I will. [I actually had something more along the lines of 'eff you' there but...]
I think Kincaid tried to be fair but I also think she came with some preconceived notions and was supplied some poor-thinking quotes. I'd be curious of what those of you who read the whole thing think about it...
Just read this to see how nuts it's become in England and remember that most Democrats here in the US would like us to be like them...
Over at RealClear Politics, former Mayor Ed Koch has an opinion piece on what the Democrats need to do to win elections. Here's his take on gun control:
Third, we must make sure we are a national party that is attractive to every part of our country. Some Republican leaders have stated that what defeated the Democrats was “guns, gays and God.” Yet, we know that many negatives can, if appropriately addressed, become positives. What if, in the case of guns, the Democrats made that issue a state rather than federal issue and fought for controls in the fifty state legislatures in accord with local party interest. New York and West Virginia see this issue differently. Therefore, the New York Democratic Party would try to pass gun control legislation in the New York State Legislature, whereas the West Virginia Democratic Party would focus its energy on other issues. We should learn what positive results have come out of the huge effort made nationally for greater control of guns over the last fifty years, especially in the area of gun injuries and deaths. The Democratic members of Congress should ask the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to publicly report on the impact of gun legislation to date.
They don't want anyone to have firearms because those guns might travel back to NY and California.
Most red-state voters are smart enough to know that most Democrats are in favor of MORE gun-control and once they get into congress or the White House, they will try to impress their vision of an unarmed populace onto the red-staters through federal legislation. They HAVE TO because the anti-gun legislators from NY, CA, MD, MA, etc., will insist on it.
By the way, I have to laugh when Koch says that Democrats should show all of us the "positive results" that 50 years of federal gun-control have had. Hmmm, aside from the NICS and a few banned guns, I don't see ANY result and certainly nothing "positive". I DO see results when individual states rightfully allow their citizens to arm themselves; I see a whole-lot less crime.
What the Democrats need to do, in my humble opinion, is to drop all opposition to the Second Amendment. They should be as-in-favor of it as they are for the First Amendment. They should recognize that the ability for self-defense is as fundamental as eating and procreating is for individual humans and is as important to the overall health of our nation as is the right to free-speech. This will never happen, though.
I was up at five in the morning to drive two hours to an 8:30 am meeting in Rutland all the while we here were "having weather" here. Then, I visited a good friend and now I'm back and I have serious tiredness requiring sleep. So, I'll be back sometime tomorrow. See you soon...
...is stupid. My friend Nicki Fellenzer has a great post up echoing what I said in Monday's Report about the anti-gun rhetoric coming out of the left. Read it!