Others...

While I've been busy slaving away at what in essence is a new web site, others have been busy posting on gun issues:

Matt Rustler at Stop The Bleating has a report on what could be (or not) a disturbing issue in one town in Wisconsin. A policeman was shot, and cops canvassed the area and performed warrantless searches and firearm confiscations. The issue is over whether they had the consent of the homeowners to do this. Publicola is also on the story and points out that when you have a street full of cops asking questions, "a reasonable person would feel a bit intimidated."

James R. Rummel at Hell In A Handbasket does the math on a Department of Justice report about a small fraction of criminals able to legally purchase firearms if the NICS doesn't respond to the gun dealer within three days.

Interesting New Blog

John Manley has started a new blog called The Torch which features both serious and satirical pieces about national politics and international issues. It's in a format different than most blogs but I find that rather refreshing. So check it out already!

D-Day Today Update

I've been busy working on this all last night and this morning. The toughest part is using my limited HTML skills to make it look like a newspaper but fear-not, just a couple more days and I'll have it up.

However, that is one of the reasons for the light posting of late...

Update: Here's what's happening...

I've received several great "fake" commentaries of D-Day and I'm putting them into the "paper". But in addition, I thought there should be some commentary about Pearl Harbor. No one submitted anything about that so I went online and downloaded Chomsky and Sontag writings. I'm "converting" them with search and replace etc., from anti-American screeds from them by replacing 9/11 references with WW2 Pearl Harbor references.

All of this takes time and I'm working on it. By Saturday it will all go up -- about four pages of satire about the "left" reporting on World War 2.

Just so you know, I've already spent about 20 hours on this and I probably have another 20 hours to go. But I think it will all be worth it. You'll have to decide... Anyway, this is consuming all of my time so posting here is rather sparse...

A Suggestion For Republicans

There are a ton of bloggers -- all far more politically astute then me -- writing about the Democratic Convention. This is by way of saying that you won't find much about it here. BUT, while I myself am lukewarm to the whole Iraq thing, I will offer this suggestion to the folks planning the Republican Convention:

Many speakers at the DNC Convention this week are or will be criticizing the decision by President Bush to go into Iraq. If you guys (Republicans) are smart, you'll bring over to the US, to the Republican Convention in NYC, some of the Iraqis who lived under Saddam Hussein's brutal and murderous regime. Many of them speak English well enough to be understood. Let them relate their horror stories. Let them --in their own words-- express their heartfelt thanks that President Bush and the Americans (and other coalition members) liberated their country. Let them explain that -- the Bush hating press notwithstanding -- things are going much better than generally reported.

Indeed, bring over some of the women from Afghanistan too, who can now venture out of doors, attend school, work.

In other words, rather than having a few Republicans attempt to explain why we are there, to a skeptical US voting public (those undecided voters) allow the actual people of Iraq themselves to make the case for President Bush's actions.

It would be moving, powerful, and the perfect argument to what those undecided voters are hearing this week.

Just a suggestion...

Update: Here's another one:

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, the hero of 9-11, is being secretly courted to become President George W. Bush's running mate in the November election, The ENQUIRER has learned.

Sources say Republican Party officials want Giuliani, who showed so much leadership and courage during the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, to replace current VP Dick Cheney on the ticket.

They are convinced Rudy is the secret weapon that could defeat Democratic hopefuls John Kerry and John Edwards.

"It's Rudy's if he wants it," a close source told The ENQUIRER. "The GOP floated rumors about Rudy in June to see what the reaction would be -- and they found overwhelming support. In early July, top Republican officials approached Rudy secretly to determine if he wants to join President Bush's ticket.

Keep in mind, that's the National Enquirer, but they've been right before!

No Weekly Report This Week

Sorry, I've just been bogged-down with other stuff and as usual, things slow down during the Summer, including stories and, er, me. It will return next week.

Gratuitous Picture of Me

Thursday nights are "range night" at the local shooting gallery. One evil person brought a camera and was snapping pics of us. I was checking the true sighting of my Para-Ordnance P14-45 (hence using the bench) and with all the rounds I fired that day, the picture he wound up sending me was of the one time I left the damn cigarette in my mouth...

I could, of course, claim that the Health-Nazi's were after me and I was merrily defending myself. But in reality I simply forgot and rather than have the photo of me circulate elsewhere, I'll pre-empt everyone by posting it here. Anyway, for those of you who were wondering, here I am...

Dissing Detroit

...I can't help it. I know I'm only supposed to write about gun stuff here but as the elections near, the fever sweeps over me... Kerry's campaign and supporters are completely out of touch with the average American.

From the Washington Times:

Sen. John Kerry spoke about the plight of the American worker when he traveled to Detroit earlier this week, a safe message for the blue-collar workers who build cars there...

So it was a little strange that the campaign picked as its press-pass logo for its Motor City tour the gleaming showcase car of a foreign auto company — Rolls-Royce — that makes cars priced far outside the financial reach of any middle-class voter.

"That's an insult to the auto worker, it's an insult to the American worker, it's an insult to mainstream America," said Sam Burwell from Corunna, Mich., a third-generation auto worker for General Motors. "It also shows who he's really in touch with: his European, elitist French friends and not Americans like me. A Rolls-Royce, for cryin' out loud."

Yes. But as with most of the groups that blindly throw their "official" support to the Democrats every four years, the United Auto Workers and other Teamster unions will no-doubt endorse Kerry. Nevermind that that they probably benefited from Bush's tax cuts (both personally and in increased auto sales) or that many UAW workers whose kids are stuck in inner-city schools were helped with the No Child Left Behind legislation.

Of course, how would they even know this when their local paper prints columns like this:

He had them at "Hello."

All Sen. John Kerry really had to do at the National Urban League's annual meeting was to walk on stage without tripping, pronounce Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's name right and offer even the promise of an urban agenda.

His remarks initially were right out of the 1960s, advocating shared values and help for poor people. He sounded like a man who didn't know that most black Americans are in the middle class, a fact lost on many politicians who focus on the extreme ends.

But then he did more: Kerry connected.

Then the writer, Rochelle Riley, gushed over all of Kerry's standard stump lines. And then, showing just how biased she is, she writes:

It's impossible to predict what message President Bush will deliver today. He is a leader seen as indifferent to many Americans' needs, supportive of transferring American jobs overseas, unclear on health care as a right, and a man who touts his programs as successes, like No Child Left Behind and international AIDS efforts, despite inadequate funding or planning...

... If the president thinks the war will save him, he might talk about that instead of domestic issues and answer charges in filmmaker Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." He could explain why so many bin Ladens were allowed to leave America right after 9/11, and address concerns raised in the 9/11 Commission report released Thursday.

One thing will be sure by dinnertime: Urban Leaguers -- and black voters -- may see a clear choice between a man who only knows haves and have-mores and a man who understands those who have and have less.

Her mind was obviously already made-up since she glows for Kerry but, without even hearing what President Bush will say, heaps her scorn on him. Indeed, she actually thinks Bush might try responding to Michael Moore's fictional movie! As for her reference to allowing "so many bin Ladens" to leave the country, is she saying that racial-profiling should have been employed against anyone of Arab descent? I thought leftists like her were decrying the large-scale questioning of many Arabs following September 11th...

The UAW, a huge majority of their workers black, and blacks in general (and gays, hispanics, et al) will simply march lock-step and follow their "spokespeople" who will order them to vote Kerry/Edwards.

At least AP reporter Pete Yost gave Bush a hearing:

President Bush acknowledged on Friday that "the Republican Party has got a lot of work to do" to gain the support of black voters and suggested that the Democratic Party is taking them for granted.

"I know plenty of politicians assume they have your vote," the president told the National Urban League. "But do they earn it and do they deserve it?"

Bush's remarks came as a new poll showed overwhelming support for John Kerry among black voters. The poll also showed blacks have yet to entirely warm up to the presumptive Democratic nominee.

The president's speech followed his refusal to address the NAACP, whose chairman, Julian Bond, has condemned the administration's policies on education, the economy and the war in Iraq and has urged high black voter turnout to defeat Bush.

Bush pointed to the fact that blacks such as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell are key members of his administration. To periodic smatterings of applause from the black audience, he asserted that his prescription of tax relief, education reform and compassionate conservatism is doing far more than the traditional programs of Democrats to address the nation's ills that hit particularly hard at blacks.

He also pointed out several good questions that the President asked the crowd and notice how he says that Bush skipped the NAACP convention but immediately provides the reason he did so. That is fairness.

Of course, Yost is -- I'm being sarcastic here -- actually a Democratic operative so that makes his report all the more admirable...

Now I realize that I'm comparing a column by a partisan to a news report by a supposedly non-partisan but I would like to think that most editorialists try to present both sides to a subject they're writing about if for no other reason than to validate their arguments.

I try -- admittedly sometimes feebly -- to do so here. Heck, I was skeptical of Bush and Iraq months before we went in. And as much as I criticize the media's coverage of gun and 2A issues, I also highlight examples of where they do a good job.

Anyway, that's my gripe for the day...

Stupid Convention Stuff...

I've already declared here that I think it's a stupid mistake if Republicans want to make "gay marriage" an issue at their convention. It's devisive and while I'm sure it will rally a few folks on the religious right, it will turn off the vast majority of "swing-state" moderates.

The Democrats seem doomed to make the same mistake over guns and the phony "assault weapons ban" that expires in September. From NY Newsday:

Long Island congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, best known nationally as an advocate for gun control, will deliver a speech at the Democratic National Convention next week urging the party to work to renew the assault weapons ban, she said Tuesday.

Some Democrats have tried to shy away from the gun control debate in a presidential election year, fearing it will hurt candidate John Kerry's chances in swing states.

"Our party is not going to walk away from it, but I would say they're a little ginger," McCarthy said. "I could understand that on some issues, but this is the assault weapons ban ... which has wide support."

Her speech is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday afternoon or early evening.

McCarthy became a national figure in 1993 when her husband was killed, and her son badly injured, by a deranged gunman aboard a commuter train.

I'm truly sorry that her husband was killed by a mutant. But frankly, this is nothing but typical victim-martyrdom that leftist Democrats seem to wallow in. And while I'm sure the far-left liberals who wind up as delegates at these Democratic conventions (and yes, far-right wackos are the delegates at Republican conventions) will suck-it-up and stamp their fascist feet in unison with McCarthy.

But the real fact is that for most of the "moderate" people who live somewhere in between the two coasts, this will only turn them off. Most of them are gun-owners and most of them have far bigger worries, such as whether "daddy" will find work again, or whether the radicals will bring their mutant brand of Islam -- again -- to the U.S. with terrorist attacks.

The Democrats refuse to realize that most of us really don't want to see a parade of "professional victims" wailing about their misfortunes. We all have problems. Show us the party that will address OUR misfortunes and concerns.

I only receive one commercial TV network; NBC. They have been working overtime sucking-up to Democrats and spotlighting them. That's a given since they desperately (at least, chief programmer Zucker, a true crap of a man) want Bush ejected from the Whitehouse. I dare them to give the Republicans as many "puff-pieces" and coverage as they have Democrats.

Guns And Federalism

Interesting debate between Walter Olson and Michael Krauss over at Point of Law over lawsuits against gun makers and federalism vs states' rights. A pair of intellectual heavy-weights go at it. VERY interesting reading...

If It's Thursday...

It must be Les Jones' Thursday Gun Links. Always a good jumping off point.

Around Town...

The Olympic Edition of Carnival of the Vanities is up over at Sound Fury. Links to all sorts of interesting stuff...

And Glenn Reynolds has a round-up of ketchup blogging. Lots of saucy links...

Finally, a Proper Ending...

Many times I have reported here the unfortunate results of the useless "restraining orders" issued by various courts being worthless as any protection from evil. Those posts usually reported that the person (usually a woman) was killed by the mutant "ex" who blithely ignored the piece of paper...

Finally, (via KABA,) someone, a real victim, showed just why owning a firearm, exercising their Second Amendment Rights, saved their lives. From WOKR TV in Rochester, NY:

A man was shot and killed by a relative as he tried to break into a home in West Hill Estates in Greece around 10:30 a.m. Saturday. The man had a restraining order against him to stay away from the premises.

Police said the homeowner shot and killed Russell Thurston, 43, with a long gun before he was able to fully enter the home. Thurston was apparently making threatening comments, but it's unclear exactly what he said.

Police said Thurston violated an order of protection filed on July 6 to stay away from the family and the home. Police won't say what led to the initial court order, but investigators say the homeowner was afraid.

At this point, Greece Police and the Monroe County District Attorney Mike Green believe the shooting was justified.

Look, in the heat of passion and mental illness, these estranged mutants will never obey a restraining order. This is why it is so important that (mostly) women trapped in such a dispute and situation ARM THEMSELVES to fend these bastards off. This story had a good ending but so many I've reported on here haven't.

The founding fathers of the United States deliberately created a Bill of Rights, and they included the Second Amendment so that beleaguered folks could defend themselves and their loved ones. Please! If you are in such a dire situation, please take advantage of your right to protect and defend yourself. Yes, a gun can be "scary" to someone who has never owned or trained with one, but just like a fire-extinguisher, it really comes in handy when your life and your childrens' lives are threatened.

I want to read many more stories such as this, and less stories about people being killed by their ex-lovers. Restraining Orders are a farce. A piece of paper can protect NOTHING and NO ONE and the police (if you even have time to dial 9-1-1) take up to 15 minutes to respond. Take some responsibility for your own life and take advantage of your rights. The best offense is a good defense! Arm yourself, damn-it!

D-Day Today Project Update

First, read this. It pops-up in a seperate window so you won't get lost... I'm working on it now and for those of you who didn't head-back-there, I'm putting together a page resembling a newspaper where the question is, what would happen if today's columnists and editorial writers and news reporters were reporting on World War II?

I've had some submissions but not nearly enough. I still need folks to write as Maureen Dowd, Kristoff, et al, to fill the pages. Please go read that post and then email me with your submissions. The post will absolutely, finally go up this weekend -- I finally have a weekend off to devote to this, -- and I need more material. Come-on now, put on your satirical hats and give me something to work with.

Dirty Tricks...

They say that "All is fair in love and war" and that certainly applies to politics as well. In Michigan, Republicans have been signing Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's petitions to appear on the ballot there. From the AP:

In an about face, Ralph Nader decided Monday to accept thousands of petition signatures collected by Michigan Republicans if that's the only way he can qualify for the state's presidential ballot.

Last Thursday, Michigan Republican Party officials submitted 43,000 signatures — far more than the 30,000 needed — to ensure Nader could appear on the ballot as an independent. Republicans began collecting signatures after it appeared that Nader might not get on the ballot as the Reform Party's candidate for president.

Look, we're not stupid around here and we realize that Republicans know that votes for Nader will come mostly at the expense of Kerry. Democratic activists will no doubt decry such tactics as "dirty politics" and manipulation of the system but isn't this the same crowd that had NO problem during the last election when Democratic operatives were running around in several areas (with "instant registration") bussing the homeless to polls with bribes? For those who don't, from WISN 12 TV in Milwaukee, here's a refresher:

WISN 12 News caught volunteers for Vice President Gore's campaign giving packs of cigarettes to homeless voters whom they had transported to cast absentee ballots.

"Anything that gets something of value, be it a $20 bill on the street out here, or a pack of cigarettes, we think is wrong," Walker said. "The trading off of anything, something of worth, in exchange for someone's vote -- not only is it ethically questionable, we believe it's a violation of the law."

Volunteers were visiting area shelters Saturday, offering rides to City Hall where homeless citizens could vote by absentee ballot.

"We've been pretty busy, going to the shelters," campaign volunteer Connie Milstein said. Milstein volunteers for the Gore campaign in New York and came to Milwaukee to help get out the vote.

The volunteers then distributed cigarettes to voters outside City Hall.

Voters interviewed by WISN 12, however, said that they did not feel that they were being bribed by the volunteers for their votes.

"They just came and asked us to go and vote," Bob Socha said. Socha also said that he enjoys voting and was already planning to vote for Gore.

And remember, Democrats (mostly, not all, and so do some Republicans,) consider cigarettes the devil incarnate. Yet they would distribute them free to get people without money to vote for their candidate.

And isn't it ironic that several Democratic law-makers recently asked the U.N. to monitor the 2004 elections?

Recalling the long, drawn out process in the southern state, nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic, sent a letter Thursday to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asking that the international body "ensure free and fair elections in America," according to a statement issued by Texas representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort.

"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," she said in the letter.

"This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself," she added after requesting that the UN "deploy election observers across the United States" to monitor the November, 2004 election.

"History repeating itself" meaning, of course, that Bush gets re-elected. These Democrats know full well that the U.N. hates the United States and especially President Bush and any observers would be inclined to side with the leftist, Democratic complaints. Fortunately, the UN declined:

United Nations observers will not monitor the US presidential election, despite a request by some Democratic lawmakers who fear a repeat of the disputed 2000 Florida vote, according to UN officials.

Thirteen Democrats in the US House of Representatives had asked the world body to send an observer mission to safeguard the rights of American voters in the November 2 election.

They cited the Florida recount battle four years ago ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court.

Republican George W Bush won the state by 537 votes, giving him the White House.

"We are deeply concerned that the right of US citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy," the lawmakers wrote UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan last week.

The United Nations said it could not act on a plea from legislators.

"The policy and practice is that the United Nations responds to requests made by national governments and not the legislative branch," UN spokeswoman Marie Okabe said.

Observation missions must also be approved by the 191-nation UN General Assembly, of which the United States is a member, as such monitoring could otherwise intrude on a country's sovereignty, Ms Okabe told reporters.

So look folks, I don't want to hear any bull-dung about how our elections here in the US are somehow corrupt since both sides of the aisle are trying to find devious ways to win the election.

And remember this when Democrats decry third-party candidates: Clinton won the election of 1992 because Ross Perot stole a bunch of votes from Bush the 1st.

Looking For Fluffy Stuff?

Just a reminder that I have another blog, Tarazet, which is "kinder and gentler" and is all about our best friends; our pets. I have several new posts up including one about a woman with a "pet alligator" and another about how folks who feed stray cats will go to jail in one PA town...

Am I multi-dimensional or what?

That Didn't Take Long...

You just KNEW the New York Times would weigh in on the "open carry" fracas in Virginia:

The latte grande at the Starbucks in Tysons Corner, Va., must have seemed extra steamy last month when two college students bellied up to the bar packing pistols on their hips, as casually as if they wore cellphones. Someone called the police, who confiscated the handguns and charged the students. But wait: the Catch-22 in Virginia's enfeebled gun control laws has kicked in.

Sure there's a state law against carrying loaded firearms in public. But the lethal fine print defines "firearm" as a 20-round-plus assault rifle. So smaller weapons, like the .22-caliber and 9-millimeter pistols the students flaunted in their holsters, are legal and no permit is required. The pistols were returned, thereby contributing to a celebratory mood among the state's gun enthusiasts. Now they're strutting their Second Amendment stuff among Main Street shoppers and restaurant diners in Washington's booming Virginia suburbs.

There was what seemed a self-fantasized posse of six this month at a table in a Champps restaurant, their weapons prominent as pepper mills. The same false alarm ensued, with a police patrol backing off in the face of citizens' exercising their rights, according to The Washington Post. And how about the couple walking their dogs on busy Market Street in Reston? They carried pistols on their hips, plus extra ammunition clips, as if the area were a set from "The Wild Bunch" and not one of the most crime-free places in Virginia.

The flaunting ritual is a tribute to "open carry" gun laws on the books in a score of states. Outcries from the unarmed public usually go unheeded. In Utah, university administrators worried over students' wearing guns in dormitories were overruled by the legislature, which defended gun rights — even to the point of packing in class.

You'd think Virginia citizens concerned about weapons in public would be able to seek comfort in the primacy of local controls. Alexandria, for instance, has barred open carrying. But that was before the very latest Catch-22 in Virginia law: effective this month, state law bars any locality from enacting gun regulations. Gotcha.

Don't you just love it? The absolute scorn and bias the Times heaps on anyone exercising their rights because it concerns firearms? Would they have characterized protestors exercising First Amendment rights as a "self-fantasized posse of six"? Would they have been "flaunting" their free-speech rights? Are Blacks and other people of color "flaunting" their 15th Amendment rights when they show up at the polls to vote?

Of course, what really bugs the NY Times is that a new state law in Virginia stated that local towns and municipalities could no longer enact their own firearms ordinances. Here's why that bill was actually a good thing (and remember, similar legislation was enacted in Colorado too):

You're a resident of somewhere in Virginia and you're on the road. Your exercising your right to openly wear a holstered gun. Your car breaks down in Alexandria and instead of a tow-truck, a police-car shows up and you're arrested for open carry. Oh, you didn't know there was a local town law against that? Too bad! Alexandria makes their own laws concerning firearms around here even if they violate or negate the Virginia constitution and state law.

That's not a situation that anyone wants. Think of it this way: If a town decides they don't allow sports cars anymore, does that mean that anyone driving a Corvette has to find alternate routes around the town?

So the Virginia state law that took effect July 1st was a good thing for all citizens, except those who write NY Times editorials...

ATF Criticized In Report

In a report that I'm sure will have the gun-grabbers howling, the Justice Department has found the ATF deficient in routine inspections of FFL licensed gun dealers. From Reuters:

The U.S. agency charged with licensing gun owners is not conducting adequate checks of licensed gun dealers and does not properly investigate gun law violations, a Justice Department audit showed on Monday.

The department's inspector general released a report that showed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducts inspections on about 4.5 percent of the 104,000 federally licensed firearms dealers each year.

At that rate it would take the ATF more than 22 years to inspect all dealers -- far below its goal of inspecting dealers at least once every three years.

The inspections are aimed at determining whether dealers can account for all guns they have bought and sold, and whether they have reported all multiple handgun sales and firearms thefts to the ATF.

The review showed that the inspection program is not fully effective in ensuring the dealers comply with federal laws because the inspections are infrequent and of inconsistent quality.

How much do you want to bet that the VPC and other "sensible gun-control" organizations will use this to exclaim why more control is needed at the user end since the government can't do it's job? Sort of like if gas stations are gouging customers or selling "bad gas" then we need to regulate cars and their drivers...

I won't argue the merits of the ATF here, I'll just say that if enforcement of regulations is lax, or they need more manpower, then maybe funding should be increased. Again, it's about enforcement of the 20 thousand gun laws currently on the books. But watch some politicians decide that this means we need 20 thousand more...

The AWB, Crime, etc...

My thanks to a reader for pointing out an interesting discussion going on over at Matthew Yglesias about the "assault weapons" ban. Plenty of comments on both sides of the issue.

One of the arguments for the ban that comes up is that aside from these "weapons of mass killing, " no one wants to ban all guns and the NRA is "lying" about a slippery slope. Several readers correctly point out that this is patently false. Several leftist politicians have repeatedly said they would ban all private citizen gun ownership if they could. So have many of their supporters (such as Hollywood denizens).

In addition, all anyone need do is look at what has happened in England and Australia (I've written about it countless times here) to see that there IS a slippery slope.

Indeed, in another contentious issue, abortion, isn't that why the "pro-choice" crowd fights so hard against ANY restrictions such as "partial-birth-abortion"?

There's more at Winds of Change.

Weekly Check on the Bias...

Is it July 19th already? Gosh, the Summer is almost half-over! Well, in Vermont, anyway.

So here's the latest Weekly Check on the Media's Bias Against Guns... I examine some of the stories reported by the press regarding guns and gun-control and the bias of those reports. Most of my "material" comes from links from Yahoo and KABA. Let's get started...

Ya' know, you just stroll into a fine dining establishment to enjoy a good meal, and you happen to have a gun strapped on -- perfectly legal -- and suddenly you're surrounded by deputies and the local sheriff is asking you all sorts of questions...

[I spent an hour trying to locate this exact shot on my VHS copy of Unforgiven showing Gene Hackman as the sheriff after he takes Clint Eastwood's gun in the tavern. You know what happens next...]

It may not have been the biggest news of the past week (well, actually there was no BIG news the past week) but it was certainly the most interesting. I (and many other bloggers) gave this a mention last week but I'd like to go into it more now because I like to hear myself talk.

Here's the scenerio: Six law-abiding gentlemen stop at a local eatery for a bite after a day at the range. In conformity with Virginia [state] law, these folks are allowed to openly carry holstered firearms. Well! Someone makes a call to the cops because, um, just because. The Washington Post picks up the story:

Dispatchers quickly sent four officers to the scene. The officers were "extremely polite" and were hoping that some of the men were in law enforcement, said Sgt. Richard Perez, a spokesman for the police department. None was.

The men told the officers "they were just exercising their rights as citizens of the commonwealth," Perez said.

Turns out, packing a pistol in public is perfectly legal in Virginia...

Turns out, huh? Imagine that! Turns out the law allowing it is only about 300 years old! It will probably come as a surprise to the writer of this news story -- Tom Jackman -- that it "turns out" that a LOT of states allow open carry of firearms.

Here's another quote:

In Virginia, as in many states, carrying a concealed weapon requires a permit, issued by a local court. But no permit is required to simply wield a gun in the open, a right reinforced by a state law that took effect July 1. Not so in the District and Maryland, unless you're a police or federal officer.

Bias in a news story is a subtle thing. You might not think you've seen any yet but...

Fortunately, as the Gods of the Blogosphere would have it, one of our own -- Scott, of the blog Demosophia -- was one of those six men and filed a report. He hits it right on when he says:

...The most glaring bias, apart from the use of presumptive idioms such as "packing heat," concerns the fact that the author, Tom Jackman, never mentions that open carry is the accepted law-abiding response to statute restrictions on concealed carry. He also never mentions that the weapons in question were holstered, and even sews a rather erroneous impression of Virginia statute by recounting the law as meaning that "no permit is required to simply wield a gun in the open."

It may be a small point, but openly wielding an unholstered firearm could, and almost certainly does (depending on the circumstances), constitute a violation called "brandishing," for which there are severe penalties, including fines and possible imprisonment. We're not talking about Dodge City here.

Put another way, no one was "wielding" anything. The guns were and remained holstered. But the average liberal who was reading this article would immediately think that folks were waving their guns around. They'll be the first ones contacting their state representatives to enact some law against such outrages. And the Washington Post eggs them on with dire quotes from several gun-control advocates including:

Openly carrying weapons is "not a good idea," said Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center in Washington. "This is the gun lobby's vision of how America should be. Everybody's packing heat and ready to engage in a shootout at the slightest provocation."

Oh come on, honey, NOBODY wants to engage in a shootout! The very act of carrying a firearm is to discourage such violence from the mutant criminals who infest our society. This last quote is a simple scare-tactic by the writer. Let's put fear into everyones' minds and stamp out this horrible right.

WaPo followed up the next day with a slightly more balanced piece about how some of the folks openly carrying are hoping to "educate" their neighbors about the right to bear arms. But they still managed to include this quote:

Some, such as Cindy Jones, worry that openly toting guns could make them too accessible to the wrong fingers. "The image that comes to mind is a child could grab it," said Jones, 50, a psychologist. "It's frightening to think that that's the mind-set. It makes me think of a gunslinger with a holster."

Well, by that rational, cops shouldn't be allowed into restaurants either since a child could grab their firearm, too. And of course, once again we have the imagery of gunslingers.

Not content to leave well enough along, the Washington Post -- yesterday -- wouldn't let go:

On Friday afternoon, Kevin M. Tracy ordered signs to be posted in the windows of the four The Bungalow restaurants in Northern Virginia. They'll read: "The Bungalow, a Homeland Security model facility. No firearms, no WMDs, safe zone."

Tracy, the restaurants' director of operations, said the small chain decided to ban gun-toting customers in March after a man with a firearm strapped to his hip sat down in its Franconia restaurant and ordered a margarita. The man properly asserted that Virginia law allows him to openly carry his weapon. But Tracy thinks guns, with the exception of those carried by police officers, have no place in his restaurants.

The writer of this article, Maria Glod, leaves that vision of a "gun-toting" customer boozing it up until the penultimate paragraph where it's revealed that the margarita was for the man's wife! He had mineral water! THAT, folks, is what media bias is all about!

Meanwhile, on the "assault weapons ban" (AWB) front, the New York Times had an editorial which -- I'm sure you'll be shocked -- lamented the probable end to the ban on 19 firearms because of the way they "look". Since the New York Times is working as hard as it can, in news stories and editorials, to have President Bush defeated this November, they blame HIM:

Few Americans favor a return to the day when military-style assault weapons like AK-47's, Uzis and Tec-9 pistols could be manufactured and sold in this country, making them readily available for use by gangs and drug traffickers engaged in violent crime. Yet President Bush has still not made any effort to stop the 10-year-old federal ban on assault weapons from expiring on Sept. 13.

Seeking to prod the White House into action, two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York, released a letter this week that was signed by Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and urged Mr. Bush to take a forceful role in rallying Congress to save the law. At a time when terrorism is a serious threat, the former presidents wrote, it is even more imperative to renew the ban, the Assault Weapons Act, and limit access to military-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

It seems doubtful that Mr. Bush will heed his predecessors' message. His zeal for fighting terrorism and crime appears not to extend to risking the wrath of pro-gun extremists who are vehemently opposed to the renewal of this proven public safety measure, even though it has led to a sharp drop in the use of assault weapons in crime. The weapons ban also has support from every major law enforcement group in the country.

Notice that they now use the phrase "military-style" twice to describe these few firearms. I suppose they think that brings up images of soldiers in Iraq. "Assault" doesn't quite do it anymore, probably from overuse. Gun-control advocates have obviously tired of the trite expression "sensible gun control." The carrot didn't work so now comes "the stick."

And once again, they bring up the specter of "terrorism" to bring terror to voters' hearts. Frankly, while guns are used for such in some parts of this world, I have a feeling that al Quada and company prefer something BIG such as crashing planes, bombs, biologicals, and so on.

Normal people would never be swayed by what Ford, Carter, and Clinton have to say about anything, but I'm sure the leftist, Bush-hating crowd in the Democratic Party will GUSH over it.

Regarding the same issue, the Salt Lake Tribune (UT) had a truly schizophrenic editorial comparing the fight against gay marriage with the fight to renew the AWB! I quote:

This being campaign season, there is more posing in Congress than at a Mr. Olympia contest. Exhibit A: The spectacle of senators prattling about whether to amend the Constitution to prevent gay marriages. Everyone knew that the proposed amendment had no chance of getting the two-thirds support necessary to pass, but Republican leaders staged the debate anyway. They wanted to score campaign points with the religious right.

Strangely enough, the GOP potentates in the House used precisely the opposite reasoning to deny Democrats a debate on extending the assault weapons ban. That ban, enacted in 1994, expires on Sept. 13. Yet Majority Leader Tom DeLay insisted that because a majority of votes to pass the extension was nowhere in sight, there was no point in debating a bill. Thus, the Republicans denied the Democrats a chance to score points with the anti-gun left.

There is a difference between these two issues, however. If two gays marry, no one is harmed. If the assault weapons ban, weak as it is, expires, it will become at least marginally easier for mentally ill people or criminals to get their hands on the kind of semi-automatic firearms that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris used to wreak havoc at Columbine High School.

The National Rifle Association and other enemies of firearms regulation claim that the existing assault weapons ban is ineffectual and senseless because it only outlaws cosmetic features of certain guns whose action is identical to that of legal hunting rifles. They are largely right.

While the contrasting strategies of Republicans is a clever one to point out, that is just politics as usual and is something both parties do every day. When's the last time you saw a Bush nomination to a high court come up for a general vote? But more important, the editorial admits that the AWB vote would simply have been to score points with the "anti-gun left."

They further concede that the ban is ineffectual and later the unsigned editorial states:

The goal should be to create a new law that not only extends the current ban but strengthens it to accomplish the original intent, which is to ban military-style, semi-automatic weapons that fire many rounds in quick succession.

Aha! So that's their real agenda. But then why press for a pointless vote on a useless existing law? Of course, they use the same imagery as others of lots of bullets fired quickly. They fail to mention that pretty much all guns operate the same way. If the bullets come out quickly, it's only due to the dexterity of the shooter's finger. That leads to the logical extension of their desire: That all guns -- since the triggers on them could be pulled quickly -- should be banned. You catch my drift...

Last week I mentioned the supposed controversy that WaPo was stirring up between the NRA and hunters. I admitted that I didn't know much about it all and I welcomed your comments and most of you made it clear that hunters DO support President Bush and the NRA. Here's further proof that you were right:

A National Wildlife Federation poll of Wisconsin's hunters and fishermen shows the solid majority are Republicans who voted for George Bush in the last election.

Results of the nationwide poll conducted by Bellwether Research & Consulting that were released Wednesday show while sportsmen are opposed to some of Bush's conservation policies, 68 percent voted for Bush in 2000 and 66 percent identified themselves as conservatives this time around.

That last line is confusing. The majority voted for Bush in 2000, but the article doesn't say how many will this time 'round. Read the whole thing.

I suppose this report is a bit shorter than some but things slow down in the Summer.

* * * * * *

Fortunately, there are plenty of other pro-2A bloggers with good stuff:

Publicola scolds Hugh Hewitt over gun control. Also a Bush/AWB meme.

Les Jones has his Thursday Gun Links up.

Via Smoke on the Water comes an intriguing idea by NeanderPundit for a bloggers' postal match. Get out those .22s and mail your targets in!

Matt Rustler at Stop the Bleating has much more on Virginia and carrying.

Blogger Garrett at "Me" takes me to task over the MN judge tossing the Minnesota concealed carry law. Last week I said that it doesn't matter how a bill gets enacted, that is, if it's attached to an un-related bill. DiFi is trying to do this with the AWB extension. I said that lots of laws are enacted this way. Garrett says this is wrong and the judge was correct.

Bitter Bitch tears one on a NJ Senate leader.

Say Uncle reports that the American Bar Association is urging Bush to renew the AWB. Otherwise, they'll just have more to file lawsuits about...

The Countertop Chronicles is challenging the Washington Post over their failure to publish his letter about open-carry in Virginia.

Kevin at The Smallest Minority scoops on self-field-stripping firearms. It's not as pleasant as it sounds...

There's much more but it's just about midnight and I have to stop sometime. Thanks to all of you for stopping by!

Reading Assignment

The Hobbesian Conservative has several thoughtfull posts up. Just start reading...

That Perfect Gift

Say, is someone in your terrorist cell celebrating a Birthday? Looking for that perfect gift?

Via Fark I found a PDF link to this gift guide. It's the 2003 FBI report on concealed weapons. I tried finding an HTML version on the FBI web site but couldn't. Which means I couldn't glom any of the zillions of pictures of unusual disguised-knives they show. Anyway, download the PDF if you like since it makes interesting reading.

I realize they produced this report to help out folks involved in searching people, for instance, at airline terminals, but I can't help thinking it almost reads (or looks) like a Spencer Gifts catalog...

It's An Addiction...

Like moths to a flame, like sands through the hourglass, like Jeff to a pack of cigarettes, there is no cure, but there is hope...

See, that's why I don't even bother removing some blogs from my blogroll when they declare they're quitting:

Michael Demmons is back at Discount Blogger. He just couldn't keep away. And that's a good thing.

That's why Rachel stays there, too. Some addictions are just too strong.

By the way, An Experiment in Scotch has moved here. (Although the connection seems to not be working at the moment.)

Lastly, and sadly, two blogs, both of them by gays, have de-linked Alphecca. I don't feel too badly because one of them also de-linked Instapundit so I guess I'm in good company. I guess they just don't like my views. That "lock-step" thing, you know...

Here and there...

One Little Victory gives his thoughts on the hypocrisy of Whoopi Goldberg and the unpleasantness of rock concerts today.

MommaBear looks at what is happening to women in Iran and wonders where NOW is?

Not Quite Random is designing a small robot that seeks out and destroys cell phones. I kinda like that. It could be programmed for other annoying things, too, such as -- oh, I don't know -- Democrats...

I've explained (in the past) why gays and blacks should own firearms. There's a nice piece in Samizdata about Jews and gun ownership. (hat-tip to Chicago Boyz.)

D.C. Thornton examines the NAACP from a different angle. Donations and evil big corporations...

Wilson and Media Bias

Dave Kopel has a fine column today about how -- now that we know Joe Wilson is a liar -- no media outside of the blogosphere is covering the story. In particular, he takes on the Denver media, which he is well acquainted with. From the Rocky Mountain News, here's a quote:

It used to be a very big story. The News ran 19 articles on it, most recently on June 25. The Post had nine articles including a glowing review of Wilson's book, A Defense of Truth, on May 16, and an excerpt from Wilson's book on May 23.

So given all this attention to Wilson and his claims, it would seem responsible for the Denver papers to let readers know that the U.S. Senate has determined that Wilson is not exactly a guy who always acts "in defense of truth," as detailed recently by The Washington Post...

...The Washington Post story has traveled all over the Internet, but has been ignored by much of the establishment media. From the Denver dailies, we have not a word now that a major anti-Bush scandal - which the papers considered newsworthy just a few weeks ago - has turned out to be a con.

Naturally you should read the whole thing.

In truth, most of the nation's major daily newspapers as well as NBC, CBS, and ABC are all working as hard as they can to defeat President Bush in November. They will gladly print "news" that casts him in poor light, and never retract themselves when that news turns out to be false (or actually it's the reverse in this Wilson affair).

This is why I no longer watch TV news or listen to radio news. I would say that while I still buy a couple newspapers each day -- and I vary them from day-to-day -- most of my information comes from the internet and I try to find the same story on several sites to see how the reports corroborate each other.

Update: Mark Steyn has more on Wilson and the media.

And Ann Coulter offers her own take on Wilson.

Still nothing from Tim Russert, Chris Matthews or Tom Brokow yet...

Rod Paige Responds to NAACP

It was no surprise that President Bush decided to skip (again) a visit to the NAACP, whose leaders have in the past launched some of the most vicious, partisan attacks upon him. The organization has lambasted the President, his policies, his party, his "No Child Left Behind" and (showing how totally out-of-step they are,) his vouchers program.

Secretary of Education Rod Paige responds in today's Opinion Journal to their charges. Here are a couple quotes:

In particular, Mr. Bond and Mr. Mfume have done a great disservice to our organization, and to the founders of the civil-rights movement, with their hateful and untruthful rhetoric about Republicans and President Bush. How ironic that they would direct this vitriol at a president who has appointed more African-Americans to high-profile posts, has committed more funds to fight AIDS in Africa, has championed minority homeownership, and has supported more trade and aid for African and Caribbean nations than any other administration...

...School should be a leg up on life, which is why No Child Left Behind is designed to provide a quality education to all children, regardless of their race, spoken accent or street address. How a civil-rights organization could characterize NCLB as "disproportionately hurting" African-American children is mind-boggling, since it is specifically designed to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged children and their peers.

By the time African-American students reach eighth grade, only 12% can read proficiently and only 7% are proficient in math. Or, as education researchers have put it, the average black high-school senior is leaving 12th grade with eighth-grade skills. We know they can learn. Now we must educate.

Although the NAACP says it is committed to erasing this pernicious achievement gap, has it put its money where its mouth is? No Child Left Behind is the most aggressive attempt to attack this problem to date, and it is the law. Yet, the NAACP would prefer to attack it merely because of its origins in the Bush administration. How sad for black children everywhere.

Read the whole thing. Once again we see what was once a proud and useful organization become simply another shrill leftist group that denounces anything Republican, conservative, or in anyway connected with the object of their blind hatred -- President Bush.

Read This

Read this post from Heartless Libertarian. DiFi and her cronies want the US to follow UN "small arms" rules. I might have worded it differently but my sentiments are with Heartless all the way. I'm really enjoying his rants! First they try to legislate away our guns, then sue them away. Now they'll try to UN them away.

The NRA mentioned the UN efforts, I think it was last Summer, or maybe the one before. Fortunately, it didn't work then thanks to pro-2A senators and congressmen. Now DiFi and Leahy et al are trying again. God help us all!

NY Times Helps Bloggers

Ordinarily, when you link to an article on the NY Times web site, after a short time (about a week) that article moves to the "for pay" archives and stops working. I've just discovered that they now have a page just for bloggers that will provide an rss link that will stay active beyond the free period.

I just tried it and it's too easy to use. So my thanks to them.

Blogger Makes WaPo Gun Story

Hey! Alphecca friend Scott of Demosophia and some of his friends were sitting in a restaurant in Virginia, with firearms, and you can guess what happens next. It wound up as a Washington Post Front Page story but in case you can't guess, you can read Scott's full report here. In fact, you should stick with Scott's post since the WaPo article is --surprise!-- biased.

Anti-Gunners Lose 1st Round in Ohio

Meanwhile in Ohio, in a post somewhat related to the previous one, the gun-grabbers lose in court, in an attempt to squash the new concealed-carry law there. From the Marion Star:

The state's three-month-old concealed weapons law passed its first test on Wednesday when a unanimous Ohio Supreme Court threw out a lawsuit that claimed county sheriffs do not have the resources to conduct thorough background checks of permit applicants.

The court, without comment, dismissed the lawsuit filed by the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, which promised to keep fighting the law.

The Legislature passed the law after nine years of debate, and Gov. Bob Taft signed it on Jan. 7. It went into effect April 8, and the coalition sued the sheriffs the next day.

As more states "grant" their citizens their constitutional right to bear arms, you're going to see a LOT of these desperate attempts.

Judge Tosses MN CCW Law

Minnesota's one-year-old concealed-carry law (actually, just a law that made it easier to obtain a carry permit, extended the permit to five-years, and removed the discretion from local sheriffs to issue it) has been struck-down. From the Star Tribune:

A Ramsey County District judge shot down Minnesota's permit-to-carry gun law Tuesday, saying that the way it was enacted in 2003 violated the state Constitution and the state's tradition of clean government.

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch said that the ruling by Judge John Finley nullifies the law that made it easier for citizens to pack heat.

But he said it doesn't invalidate the more than 25,000 permits issued since the process became less discretionary.

Hatch said he will immediately appeal Finley's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. For now, Hatch said, the state reverts to the old system where local sheriffs have discretion to issue permits to carry firearms. While it is commonly referred to as a conceal-and-carry law, the statute does not require the permit holder to conceal his or her weapon.

The 2003 change established a system requiring sheriffs to honor permit requests by all citizens 21 and over who are trained in the safe use of a pistol and who are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.

It also required property owners to post "no weapons" signs, if they want to prohibit weapons on their premises, and in the event they wanted to press trespassing charges against violators.

Hatch said the signs are no longer required to pursue trespassing charges; a verbal warning is now sufficient. But he said building owners may decide to keep the signs up anyway for informational purposes.

This has thrown the whole process into disarray. Here's an article from yesterday:

On Wednesday, law enforcement officials scrambled to adjust. Jim Franklin, executive director of the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, said members were seeking answers to many questions. He said a lot of sheriffs are hoping that the attorney general's appeal, once made, will suspend Finley's ruling until higher courts settle the issue.

In the meantime, some sheriffs are advising potential permit applicants to wait for the dust to settle in the courts. Other sheriffs immediately reverted to issuing permits under terms of the old law. Permits under the old law were cheaper and issuance was at the discretion of sheriffs and police chiefs, but the validations under the old law were only good for one year instead of the newer law's five years.

Talk about a "blind-side" by what many would call an "activist" judge. Since much of all the legislation that exists in all states, not to mention federal laws, come about as amendments attached to various bills, this means (if this judge's foolish ruling is upheld) that there are a heck of a lot of laws in this country that are "illegal." Heck, DiFi is trying to attach her extension of the AWB bill to an unrelated bill in the US Senate as we speak. I really don't see the Minnesota Supreme Court supporting this ruling but scarier things have happened.