"Your Comment is Awaiting Moderation"

After posting this, I posted this in Fox News site comments:

Note the number and the time.

This is where it's currently at:

And it's not because I left a link: first of all, it's their system that makes it active, plus others have left links in their posts (for instance, see Comment #18). And I didn't violate any standards by using bad words, insults...

I think it's safe to say they don't care for what I'm proposing. It's not in their interests.

Think about that for a moment, and ask yourself if this seems like the actions of honest and ethical journalists whose interests are to bring unbiased information to the electorate, you know, as in "We report, you decide."

UPDATE: It's finally made it--looks like my comment poster Bob in Sea Tac was right, and it was a matter of them being overwhelmed.

Paul Campaign: Make Lemons Out of Lemonade

We talked about this in passing here.

Now it looks like Ron Paul will be allowed to participate in the ABC debates.

"Fair and Balanced" and "conservative" Faux News will not allow him to appear, even though he finished in Iowa far ahead of Sean Hannity darling Rudy Giuliani, who is invited, and is polling far ahead of Fred Thompson, also an invitee, in New Hampshire.

You shouldn't need to be a Paul supporter to be outraged by this manipulation of the electorate by corporate media special interests. There are two things his supporters are encouraging us to do:

Leave a comment for the Faux propagandists at their "You Decide '08" page, and visit the "Protest Fox" webpage and learn how to send an email or two.

These are both good actions, and I will do them this weekend, but it's also time for some real creative and outside the box thinking from the Paul campaign team--immediate action. If negotiations are unsuccessful at getting their candidate in at the last minute, they should do three things--they should be starting on them now:

1. Use a portion of that $20M they've raised to buy a 1-minute ad for Ron to be aired immediately before the debate--if not on Fox, then on their competitor CNN. The content of the ad should be to call attention to his exclusion, to provide an overview of his message, and to direct viewers to #2,

2. Have Ron live on the Internet at the same time as the debate, answering all questions posed to the candidates on the Fox program. This could actually work to his advantage, as there'd be no distractions from other candidates, no questions intentionally leaving him out, and no misrepresentations of his positions or statements by the other candidates. It could also draw a significant portion of the audience away from Fox.

3. Publicize the hell out of this. Issue press releases to get it into the news. Use the unprecedented Internet network Paul supporters have established.

I have no real hopes that this will be done as I have no real influence with the Paul campaign. But I think if he did this, the wave of publicity and curiosity and potential for getting his message out could be tremendous. But if they're going to do it, they need to do it NOW, because the debate is tomorrow.

If you agree, contact the Paul campaign and tell them so. If they want to make this happen, nobody's going to go to bed tonight.

CeaseFire PA Director's Watch: 01/05/08

Well, it's Saturday. They're probably sleeping in.

NRA-ILA Responds on Sullivan

All of us who wrote got the same letter (thanks to everyone who forwarded theirs), and Armed and Safe presents it and pretty well sums everything up, so I won't duplicate that here.

It's what I expected when I said they didn't want to give an unequivocal "yes" or "no" answer. Their world is too labyrinthine for directness, and they're counting on being a force of influence on pending legislation. As such, they'll do nothing to alienate or jeopardize access, which, for lobbyists, is everything.

And this way, if and when "Maximum Mike" is confirmed, they will not have been among his assailants, providing additional capital.

If nothing else, it's masterful political judo, turning this to their advantage. And here's the other thing: While the rest of us are making noise, they're in there quietly behind the scenes working on legislation that should provide relief for some of the more egregious determinations of dealer noncompliance, such as abbreviations on forms...

And while the rest of us want nothing less than elimination of BATFU, well, really, if that's going to happen, how? Who's leading the effort, how much support and resources do they have, how many sponsors in the legislature...? Truth is, no one has assembled that army, let alone taken the first step to make it happen.

So, what, have I given up? Can I now expect comments about selling out, or asking who got to me?

No, not at all to the first, probably to the second. I'm just laying out the way things are--if we refuse to see them because they piss us off, well, nobody ever won anything through self-imposed blindness. And those of you who decry the NRA's position without anticipating and understanding the rationale for defending it will not be well served.

This Day in History: January 5

During the chilly late afternoon of January 5, 1781, Virginia Governor Thomas Jefferson stood helpless at his vantage point in Manchester as he watched warehouses and workshops in Richmond burn. Traitorous General Benedict Arnold, who hadn’t received a satisfactory response to his demand for the surrender of the one-year-old capital of Virginia, was torching the town.

It helps to recall the traitor Arnold when the other side trots out some former military man to use as a prop, as if that should trump reason. Bravery is admirable, but it does not excuse bad motives.

Batman vs The Riddler

When the man with the bat tried to attack the driver, investigators said, the second driver pulled out a gun and shot the first driver twice...

The shooter – whose identity has also not been released – had a license to carry a concealed weapon and investigators said he acted in self-defense and will not immediately face charges.

You know, "riddled with bullets..."?

Ahh, forget it.

Still, riddle me this, Caped Anti-Gun Crusaders: Would you prefer if the man being attacked had been unarmed and bludgeoned to death?

[Via Tony G]

If I Were a Carpenter...

...I'd be hammering back at Carpentersville.

Tony G shows us there's no shortage of little wooden heads supporting the destruction of guns.

World of Paulcraft

Apparently, sometime around 8:30 PM EST on Tuesday, a throng of Alliance members took to the streets of Ironforge in a surprisingly well-orchestrated in-game demonstration designed to drum up support for (very real life) Republican dark horse presidential candidate and Internet darling Ron Paul.

Pretty cool, but he'll need to get out of the virtual world and into the real one. it is encouraging that he's doing double-digits in a state where agricultural subsidies and cheap migrant labor are factors favoring Huckabee and McCain. I don't know what to make of Rudy's poor showing, since he blew Iowa off, but Paul getting more than three times Giuliani's support at least shows us Big City Republicans and the Heartland aren't much of a match.

What's clear is, the networks keeping Ron Paul from the televised debates are abusing the public facilities they rely on for their private profits to advance their special interest political agenda. After Iowa, how do you keep Paul out and leave Giuliani in? Especially now that their own quoted "double digit" criteria has been met in the only "real" poll taken to date. These damned elitist "Authorized Journalist" gatekeepers are supposed to report stories, not engineer their outcomes.

[Via Thirdpower]

Marko...

Polo?

Fighting for Liberty identifies the "Only One" from yesterday's post.

Spiffmo

Regular WarOnGuns readers will remember Tomato 7.

Ben has pulled up stakes and reincarnated his blog as Spiffmo.

Check it out.

Granting Rights?

I just received the following email, in response to "'Privileges' Watch," my current Rights Watch column in GUNS Magazine:

David, I appreciate your time and effort in support of 2nd Amendment.

However, you make a statement in the article that I believe is incorrect and I thought I'd bring it to your attention. 4th para. into the article, "The Bill of Rights grants no rights. To believe that it does reverses the proper role...."

Please read the Sixth Amendment below:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Also, the Ninth Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Anyway, my red flag goes up when I hear or read sweeping general statements like that. The Bill of Rights does include the granting of certain rights, at least one is clearly stated in the 6th Amendment.

Be well,

ER

It's an interesting perspective, and I'm not trying to be stiff-necked, but I don't believe I'm wrong in this. The Sixth Amendment is not granting a right, it is acknowledging one codified in English Common Law and predating the Constitution, as do discussions of judicial powers and jury trials in the Federalist Papers. I guess we could also bring up differences between civil/legal rights and natural ones, and the dangerous blurring of what "rights" are, particularly with politicians bandying about terms like "Patients' Bill of Rights", etc., in an attempt to pander for votes and defraud people out of real ones...

But I'm starting to digress. I will cede that a right to trial by jury is meaningless in the absence of government, and that at one point, a body of men decided that a jury trial was a right to which government would yield. But that decision was also made about everything else we consider "unalienable" as well, and we see them being alienated all the time.

As for the Ninth Amendment, I believe the fact that it states rights are "retained by the people" speaks for itself as predating the article, and goes to the core of why some warned against including a Bill of Rights in the first place--so that what was enumerated wouldn't be construed as all that there was.

It's an interesting question, and I'd be interested in hearing more thoughts on this.

CeaseFire PA Director's Watch: 01/04/08

Do I hear "38"?

Britney Spears is On the List

Police were called to Britney Spears' home Thursday night in a custodial dispute that lasted nearly three hours before an intoxicated Spears reportedly turned over her children to ex-husband Kevin Federline.

She can't or won't control herself, but wants to impose controls on us.

This Day in History: January 4

It is not in the pages of History perhaps to furnish a case like ours. To maintain a post within musket shot of the Enemy for six months together [without powder] and at the same time to disband one Army and recruit another within that distance of twenty odd British regiments, is more than probably ever was attempted: But if we succeed as well in the latter, as we have hitherto in the former, I shall think it the most fortunate event of my whole Life.

We're the Only Ones Armed and Confused Enough

Authorities admitted today that they arrested the wrong man in a police shooting at an East Germantown rowhouse early New Year's Day that left three bystanders - one of them a 9-year-old boy - as well as the gunman wounded...

The 9-year-old was grazed by an officer's bullet, police said.

What's especially rich is the real perp seems to be an employee of the anti-gun "Authorized Journalists" at the Inquirer. And naturally, we know everybody's names except for the "Only One" who shot the kid.

[Via Tony G]

The Eve of Destruction

The board voted to save the gun, donated from an estate, until the village attorney determines what the parameters are for giving the gun to the VFW.

The thought of the used guns, mostly pistols, getting in the wrong hands generated weeks of debate among village trustees. Originally, the board voted to sell the guns to a federally licensed dealer for $3,000; but after Otto Engineering President Tom Roeser offered to donate $3,000 in exchange for the destruction of the guns, the board obliged.

I can't help but wonder why anyone would donate anything to this pack of ingrates. And I understand this Tom Roeser character is a real piece of work.

What Councillor Ian Macdonald Believes

"I don’t believe that a gun should be necessary for anyone, never mind someone under 18."

I know there can be a sense of frustration that anti-defense bigots like this will probably never face the consequences for the evil they do.

Let's focus instead on making ourselves invulnerable.

That's the goal.

Dodge City, Indiana

A customer at a grocery store stopped an armed robbery by pulling his own gun and holding the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived, authorities said.

Now see, if he'd been unarmed, we wouldn't have to tolerate this cowboy mentality recklessness. After all, we have a right to feel safe, don't we?

We're the Only Ones Screening Enough

Police in Ottawa say all bars and nightclubs should be screening patrons for weapons...

Police say it's not uncommon for people to bring guns into bars...

Let's see, we're talking Canada, so how many laws are already being broken?

Yep, sounds like what they need is another law, forcing bars to install costly equipment and pay screeners. I know they say "all," but after the lobbying is done, I wonder if there will be size threshold, to provide relief to smaller corner bars, and if any consideration will be given to the clientele a bar attracts, or if, in the name of equality, Mom and Pop's neighborhood pub on the corner will be forced to install the same controls as Club Gangsta. Then, of course, we know bars pay their personnel so well and only employ those of highest ethical standards, so there's no way any would be corrupt or disgruntled enough to let patrons bribe them. And, of course, we can't forget the bathroom window loophole...

Great idea, there, Canadian "Only Ones"! Let us know when you've made things safe enough at known drug dealer/gangster hangouts to go club hopping again.

Painted in a Corner in SA

[A] number of security companies are contracting with clients to provide an armed reaction service although the company does not legally own firearms.

"It would appear that their reaction officers are being issued with paintball guns in order to defend themselves and their clients."

With the sorry history of South Africa and gun control, color me unsurprised it's devolved to this.