A Little Attribution Here...?

"It didn't matter the rifle in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that it did not have an M16 bolt carrier or sear, that it did not show any signs of machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few years back," said a commentary in Guns Magazine on the case against David R. Olofson, of Berlin, Wis.

What, telling people the author's name would kill you?

How am I supposed to manage my reputation if people don't know who I am?

Yeah, I know that seems petty, but show me a writer who's not interested in increasing "brand name" recognition.

"[T]he commentary said" indeed. Is that anything like "the gun went off"?

Raising the Barr

By the time Rep. Chenoweth introduced her bill, there were 11 original cosponsors -- a significant number indeed. Consider that the other leading bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun ban only had one original cosponsor when it was introduced earlier this year. That bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), would only repeal the retroactive part of the gun ban, leaving the ban in place for the future.[Emphasis Added-DC]

Really?

It would seem so:

Rep. Barr shows support for Lautenberg ban.

In early March, Rep. Bob Barr endorsed the concept of the Lautenberg gun ban, calling it "important and worthwhile legislation." Barr's comments appeared as an editorial in the March 6, 1997 issue of USA Today, where he called for only a limited repeal of the Lautenberg ban. While he opposed the retroactive part of the ban, Rep. Barr endorsed the underlying principle behind the Lautenberg gun ban, stating that,

This [Lautenberg gun ban] is important and worthwhile legislation, and we cannot allow its effectiveness to be reduced.

Unfortunately, this was not the first time that Rep. Barr has expressed his support for the underlying principle behind the Lautenberg gun ban. On September 28, 1996, Rep. Barr issued a memo on his Congressional letterhead stating that:

The Lautenberg amendment with the Barr language is strong protection for women and children. [Emphasis in the original.]

And then on October 12, 1996, Rep. Barr sent a letter to the editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, again saying that he had fought hard to "improve" the Lautenberg language. He noted that because of his amendment, the Lautenberg gun ban could now pass constitutional muster and not be struck down by the courts. Barr stated:

Under the Lautenberg language -- which was cleared up through my amendatory language that was adopted -- there was no consistent definition of "crime of domestic violence," and therefore the entire provision would have been declared unconstitutional. My language corrected this deficiency by setting forth the common elements of the crime that would apply to everyone. [Emphasis added.]

Rep. Barr was also one of the Representatives who voted last September in favor of the Lautenberg gun ban as part of the omnibus spending bill (H.R. 3610).

The above statements would seem to indicate that Rep. Barr is content with only repealing the retroactive nature of the ban, and thus, leaving the gun ban in the federal code in perpetuity.

We've seen the best the Republicans are offering us--this is all the LP can muster? We are so screwed.

I'm writing in Papoon for President.

"He's Not Insane."

The Google Star Vanishes*

Before:


After:


Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.

*With Apologies

A Nightmare Assault on Public Safety!!!

State legislators should reject the National Rifle Association’s incessant demands to water down sensible gun-control laws.

In the organization’s latest assault on common sense and public safety, the NRA is pushing for a change in state laws that would allow anyone to carry a gun in a motor vehicle as long as it is in a case and unloaded.

Yeah, really. That is just insane.

What earthly reason could a citizen have to keep a gun in the car?

Or anywhere else for that matter, since "common sense" applies everywhere?

Besides, it'll give "The Only Ones" nightmares.

I wonder if these hysterical ninnies ever actually listen to themselves? Good grief, you don't suppose a "man" wrote this, do you?

Harlem Criminals Break Law!

Six teens were struck and wounded in that Monday shooting, police said, but that told only half the story of violence in the area. An additional four people were wounded in four unrelated shootings in another part of Harlem.

See, this kind of stuff isn't allowed. I don't know how much clearer Bloomberg can make things.

Maybe he ought to send some of those undercover private dicks from the James Mintz Group over to infiltrate the gangs--and then he can sue 'em. I'm sure Judge Weinstein will give him all the support he needs. He always has...

A Gun Turn-In Program that Can't...Uh...Can be Beat

"Mayor Thomas Menino is telling these kids to pick up guns and turn them in," she said just before the arraignment. "Is this what's going to happen to them?"

..."They just kept beating him and beating him and beating him," Lewis said. "I only stepped in when he said, 'I can't breathe!' "

...Just after midnight on Sunday, they wrote, officers went to the scene following a tip that someone fitting Rivers's description had a gun.

I'm sorry--I was trying to think up a slogan and thought it might help inspire me.

Enter the Baltimore Sun's Gun Snitch Slogan Contest!

We could generate public interest in the program by holding a contest for a slogan. Here is my idea: "Report a Gun - Make a Few Bucks." What's yours?

Contests? I LOVE contests!

Here's my entry:

How about:
"Got a Gang Rival? Let Us Do Your Dirty Work For You?"

I could have thought of others, but there are so many to choose from!

Head on over and give 'em yours. It doesn't say if we win anything, but somehow I think we'll all win if we take a minute and enter.

And spread the word.

Illinois Makes it Illegal to Commit Illegal Gun Transfer Illegally to Minors Who Can't Legally Have Them Because it's Illegal

Governor Rod Blagojevich has been sent legislation that would require a stiff prison sentence for a person convicted of giving a gun to a minor who then goes out and commits a crime.

Yeah--make it even more illegal--that'll fix things. Good job, Kwame Raoul. No wonder you're a great man and we're not.

Hey, I wonder if there should be a provision to make an exception for Rod's father-in-law--or will they just pass a special workaround for him if and when he needs it?

"Martin Belam Replied"

He started out trying to be conciliatory, but then he went and accused us of "trolling." And brought up somebody in an unrelated thread telling him he should be shot, as if that has any relevance here.

I also never knew I had an "Internet reputation managing system in place," let alone a "highly efficient" one. There are careers in that?

[Via Anonymous]

Grading a Term Paper

Clearly, firearms should not be made available freely and openly, no questions asked, to anyone wishing to purchase one.

Why not?

And "reasonable measures"? Who gets to decide that?

Perhaps the author could include an end note to show where authority for such infringements is delegated? What in his own research makes him think such edicts slow the monsters among us down one bit, and why did he not see fit to recognize government usurping such undelegated powers as a primary reason for needing an armed citizenry?

I'm not trying to pick a fight here. What I'm trying to do is stimulate a discussion. How do you protect "shall not be infringed" for the rational, mature and whole among us?

I've said before that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. That's true, but the freedoms in our society--or perhaps the misapplication of them?--guarantee there are some among us who can't be trusted with matches and butter knives.

So what do we do? Cede that permissions and prior restraints are reasonable? Or cede that one of the costs of freedom is that some will abuse it at times, and at times with terrible results?

My own thought is that the more free society is, the better protected it will be, and the more incentives will be in place to address problem individuals. But I admit my hypothetical ideal is not the society we are currently living in.

What are your thoughts?

[Via Mindful Musings]

This Day in History: May 28

Fresh ADVICES from the AMERICAN ARMY.

Camp at Cambridge, May 28, 1775.

YESTERDAY a Party from the United American Army was ordered to take the Cattle, Hay, &c. from Noddle's and Hog Islands. While executing their Orders, they were attacked by a Number of the King's Troops from Boston, in an armed Schooner, a Sloop, and 8 or 10 Boats belonging to the Men of War: A brisk Fire began about Four o'Clock, P. M. and continued most of the Night, then ceased a little, and at Dawn of Day was renewed, by which Time Capt. Foster, with two Field Pieces from this Camp, joined our Troops, when a heavy Fire from the Shore on the armed Vessels put them into great Distress. The Schooner's Decks were cleared, and she drifted on the Ferry-Way at Winesimet, where our People sat Fire to her, and she was soon blown up, and destroyed. Sixteen Four-Pounders, and six Swivels, were taken out of her by our People. The Sloop was disabled, and obliged to be towed off by the Men of War's Boats; the Remains of them are returned to their Den. Our People had none killed, three wounded, but none of them dangerously. The Number of killed and wounded of the Enemy not known.

Printed by J. Carter.